Biodetection of low pathogenic avian influenza virus (LPAIV) infected mallards data set

Metadata:

Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Golden, Glen J.
Originator: Grady, Meredith J.
Originator: McLean, Hailey E.
Originator: Shriner, Susan A.
Originator: Hartwig, Airn
Originator: Bowen, Richard A.
Originator: Kimball, Bruce A.
Publication_Date: 2021
Title:
Biodetection of low pathogenic avian influenza virus (LPAIV) infected mallards data set
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: spreadsheet
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Research Dataset Series
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Fort Collins, CO
Publisher: USDA, APHIS, WS National Wildlife Research Center
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2021-001
Description:
Abstract:
Outbreaks of avian influenza virus (AIV) infection included the spread of highly pathogenic AIV in commercial poultry and backyard flocks in the spring of 2015. This resulted in estimated losses of more than $8.5 million from federal government expenditures, $1.6 billion from direct losses to produces arising from destroyed turkey and chicken egg production, and economy-wide indirect costs of $3.3 billion from impacts on retailers and the food service industries. Additionally, these outbreaks resulted in the death or depopulation of nearly 50 million domestic birds. Domesticated male ferrets (Mustela putorius furo) were trained to display a specific conditioned behavior (i.e. active scratch alert) in response to feces from AIV-infected mallards in comparison to feces from healthy ducks. In order to establish that ferrets were identifying samples based on odors associated with infection, additional experiments controlled for potentially confounding effects, such as: individual duck identity, housing and feed, inoculation concentration, and day of sample collection (post-infection). A final experiment revealed that trained ferrets could detect AIV infection status even in the presence of samples from mallards inoculated with Newcastle disease virus or infectious laryngotracheitis virus. The data included covers the training with live AIV fecal samples, testing with alternate but similar pathogens, and generalization testing with fecal samples from ducks pre and post infection.
Purpose:
We hypothesized that the success of the ferrets in detecting AIV infection in irradiated mallard fecal samples could be repeated using fecal samples from live AIV infected and non-infected ducks. We also conducted experiments that tried to control for diet, location, collection day, and infection from other viruses.
Supplemental_Information:
For more information about this study and these data, see Golden et al. (2021).
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 20151101
Ending_Date: 20161231
Currentness_Reference:
Ground condition
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: As needed
Spatial_Domain:
Description_of_Geographic_Extent:
Animals were shipped from Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, PA to the National Wildlife Research Center where they were housed, trained, and tested. Data could represent entire United States.
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -105.149444
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -105.145278
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 40.586944
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 40.582500
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: ISO 19115 Topic Category
Theme_Keyword: health
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: National Research & Development Taxonomy
Theme_Keyword: Wildlife (or Fauna)
Theme_Keyword: Mammals
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: associative learning
Theme_Keyword: olfaction
Theme_Keyword: odor discrimination
Theme_Keyword: operant behavior
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Place_Keyword: Pennsylvania
Place_Keyword: Philadelphia
Taxonomy:
Keywords/Taxon:
Taxonomic_Keyword_Thesaurus:
None
Taxonomic_Keywords: mammals
Taxonomic_Keywords: single species
Taxonomic_System:
Classification_System/Authority:
Classification_System_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: ITIS
Publication_Date: 2021
Title:
Integrated Taxonomic Information System
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: database
Other_Citation_Details:
Retrieved [April, 23, 2021]
Online_Linkage: https://www.itis.gov
Taxonomic_Procedures:
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Kingdom
Taxon_Rank_Value: Animalia
Applicable_Common_Name: Animal
Applicable_Common_Name: animaux
Applicable_Common_Name: animals
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subkingdom
Taxon_Rank_Value: Bilateria
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Infrakingdom
Taxon_Rank_Value: Deuterostomia
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Phylum
Taxon_Rank_Value: Chordata
Applicable_Common_Name: cordés
Applicable_Common_Name: cordado
Applicable_Common_Name: chordates
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subphylum
Taxon_Rank_Value: Vertebrata
Applicable_Common_Name: vertebrado
Applicable_Common_Name: vertébrés
Applicable_Common_Name: vertebrates
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Infraphylum
Taxon_Rank_Value: Gnathostomata
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Superclass
Taxon_Rank_Value: Tetrapoda
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Class
Taxon_Rank_Value: Mammalia
Applicable_Common_Name: mammifères
Applicable_Common_Name: mamífero
Applicable_Common_Name: mammals
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subclass
Taxon_Rank_Value: Theria
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Infraclass
Taxon_Rank_Value: Eutheria
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Carnivora
Applicable_Common_Name: cachorro do mato
Applicable_Common_Name: carnívoro
Applicable_Common_Name: gato do mato
Applicable_Common_Name: lontra
Applicable_Common_Name: carnivores
Applicable_Common_Name: carnivores
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Suborder
Taxon_Rank_Value: Caniformia
Applicable_Common_Name: dog-like carnivores
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Mustelidae
Applicable_Common_Name: mustelids
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subfamily
Taxon_Rank_Value: Mustelinae
Applicable_Common_Name: wolverines
Applicable_Common_Name: martens
Applicable_Common_Name: weasels
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Mustela
Applicable_Common_Name: ermines
Applicable_Common_Name: ferrets
Applicable_Common_Name: minks
Applicable_Common_Name: weasels
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Mustela putorius
Applicable_Common_Name: European Polecat
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subspecies
Taxon_Rank_Value: Mustela putorius furo
Access_Constraints: None
Use_Constraints:
These data were collected using funding from the U.S. Government and can be used without additional permissions or fees. If you use these data in a publication, presentation, or other research product please use the following citation:

Golden, Glen J.; Grady, Meredith J.; McLean, Hailey E.; Shriner, Susan A.; Hartwig, Airn; Bowen, Richard A.; Kimball, Bruce A. 2021. Biodetection of low pathogenic avian influenza virus (LPAIV) infected mallards data set. Research Dataset Series. USDA, APHIS, WS National Wildlife Research Center. Ft. Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2021-001
Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person: Glen J. Golden
Contact_Organization: Colorado State University ; USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center
Contact_Position: Research Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical
Address: Colorado State University
Address: 1683 Campus Delivery
City: Fort Collins
State_or_Province: CO
Postal_Code: 80523-1683
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 970-266-6082
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: glen.golden@colostate.edu
Data_Set_Credit:
This project was funded by United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center.
Cross_Reference:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Golden, Glen J.
Originator: Grady, Meredith J.
Originator: McLean, Hailey E.
Originator: Shriner, Susan A.
Originator: Hartwig, Airn
Originator: Bowen, Richard A.
Originator: Kimball, Bruce A.
Publication_Date: 2021
Title:
Biodetection of a specific odor signature in mallard feces associated with infection by low pathogenic avian influenza A virus
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: PLOS One
Issue_Identification: 16(5): e0251841
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251841
Back to Top
Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
To avoid the possibility of the handler inadvertently communicating the position of the CS+ (positive conditioned stimulus) to the ferret, a double-blind procedure was incorporated into the training regimen employing a separate “box handler” and “ferret handler”. The box handler designed the daily schedule, consisting of the position of the CS+ scratch boxes, the order (i.e., trial number) of CS+ ratio presentation, and the order the ferrets were to perform their individual sessions. The box handler positioned the CS+ and CS- (negative conditioned stimulus) scratch boxes on the board, placed the board on the ground to signal the start of a trial, confirmed or rejected the ferret handler’s call (described in the next sentence) and positioned the boxes on the board for the next trial. The ferret handler controlled when the ferrets were to start a trial and called out “Hit” when the ferret made a decision and alerted to one of the boxes. The box handler responded “correct” or “incorrect” (based on the box handler’s knowledge of CS+ location) so that the ferret handler could rapidly react appropriately to the ferret’s decision. For a correct response, the ferret handler clicked the clicker and provided a small amount of FerretVite with a modified syringe. When the box handler rejected the ferret handler’s call of the alert, the ferret handler picked up the ferret and faced away from the box handler as the box handler picked up the board and prepared it for the next trial. This method was used for all training sessions, including additional shaping of behavior, training, and experimental testing.
Completeness_Report:
No data are missing or intentionally withheld.
Lineage:
Methodology:
Methodology_Type: Field
Methodology_Description:
Biodetectors
Six castrated male ferrets were acquired at 15 weeks of age from Marshall BioResources (North Rose, NY) and trained as described in a previous study (PONE-D-20-11704R1). Ferrets were pair-housed at the National Wildlife Research Center (Fort Collins, CO) in two level wire cages (MidWest, Muncie, IN) and maintained at 23°Celsius (C) on a 12 hour light (12 hour dark) cycle. The ramp connecting the upper and lower levels of the cage could be locked in a closed position, allowing each of the ferrets to be isolated. Environmental enrichment was provided both in the cages (blankets, hanging cubes, and hammocks) and during 60 minute free exercise periods daily on weekdays. Ferrets were given ad libitum access to tap water and Totally Ferret Complete diet (Performance Foods, Broomfield, CO) with the exception of food restriction periods during training and testing.

During food restriction periods, ferret body masses were recorded every weekday and health was assessed daily (e.g., grooming, activity, visible signs of discomfort). There was no food restriction on weekends and ferrets were assessed for health daily by Animal Care staff. Food was provided after training or testing sessions for 1 hour while the ferrets were separated on different levels of the cages. Food bowls were weighed before and after the feeding session and the difference (i.e., mass of food assumed ingested) was recorded.

Stimuli - Duck Feces
Cohort I - National Wildlife Research Center samples
Sixty mixed sex hatchery-bred mallards (Murray MacMurray, Webster City, IA, USA) were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups of 15 ducks each. Fresh water and food were provided ad libitum. Feed consisted of game bird chow and cracked corn mixture (mixed 2:1). All birds were maintained in containment prior to experimentation and were screened for antibodies to IAV prior to inoculation to ensure they were negative. Testing occurred in BSL-2 containment rooms. All ducks were inoculated oro-choanally with 1 ml of BA-1 viral transport media (M199-Hank’s salts, 1% bovine serum albumin, 350 mg/L sodium bicarbonate, 2.5 mg/ml amphotericin B in 0.05 M Tris, 100 units/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, pH 7.6) containing 0, 3, 4 or 5 log10 EID50 of A/environment/Illinois/NWRC183983-24/2006 (H6N2, GenBank CY122500.1). H5 (next cohort) and H6 viruses were used in these experiments because those subtypes are of high interest due to the increased likelihood that those subtypes spillover into poultry and cause economic harm. While H3s and H4s are the most commonly detected subtypes in N American waterfowl and can spillover into poultry, H3s and H4s do not generally cause pathogenicity in wild birds or poultry. Mallards were inspected daily for signs of pain or distress. Feces were collected from individual ducks daily on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 14 post-inoculation stored at -80° C until testing. All ducks were also swabbed and tested for viral RNA by qPCR [16] which confirmed infection in all inoculated individuals.

Cohort 2 - Colorado State University Samples
Ten farm-raised mallards of mixed sex were housed indoors (10 birds per pen). Fresh water and food were provided daily. Feed consisted of approximately100g of game bird chow and cracked corn mixture (mixed 2:1) per duck per day. All birds were maintained in containment prior to experimentation and were screened for antibodies to IAV prior to inoculation to ensure they were negative. Six ducks were infected ocularly, intranasally and orally with 1 ml of brain heart infusion broth containing 1.6 x 106 plaque-forming units (pfu) of A/Mallard/MN/346250/00 (H5N2). Cloacal swabs were collected on days three and four following experimental infection. All individuals were inspected daily for signs of pain, distress, or infection. Infection was confirmed by real-time RT-PCR and inoculation into 10-day old embryonating chicken eggs. Two pooled fecal samples were collected from each duck. Feces were collected daily for four days immediately preceding experimental infection and again on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 post-inoculation. Pre- and post-treatment samples were stored frozen at -80° C until training and testing.

Twenty farm-raised mallards of mixed sex were housed indoors (10 birds per biocontainment room). Housing, water, and food were provided consistent with LPAIV infected mallards. Ten ducks were infected by intratracheal inoculation of 0.15 milliliters (ml) containing 50,000 tissue culture infectious doses 50% (TCID50) of a lentogenic, field isolate of Newcastle disease virus (NDV). At the same time, another 10 ducks in a different room were inoculated with 20,000 TCID50 of a field isolate of infectious laryngotracheitis virus (ILV). For birds inoculated with either virus, cloacal swabs and feces were collected prior to virus inoculation and daily from days 1-5 following virus inoculation. Ten ducks were not inoculated and used as controls. Infection was confirmed by virus specific plaque assays of tracheal swab samples.

Ferret odor alert response and odor discrimination training
Ferrets were trained using 1 in 5 bioassays. Five scratch boxes were attached to a metal panel approximately 15.9 centimeters (cm) apart and in the longitudinal center of the board (Figure 1 in Golden et al. 2021). The base compartment of each scratch box was customized to allow for the retention of a small 1 ml glass vial (Qorpak, Bridgeville, PA, USA). Vial caps (plastic septum-type screw caps with a 9 millimeters [mm] diameter opening) were fitted with 10 mm, Whatman qualitative filter paper, grade 1 (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) that allowed for the escape of volatiles but not the material placed in the vial (0.25-0.5 g of feces per vial). One randomly positioned box of the five on the panel held a vial containing fecal material from an LPAIV infected duck. The remaining four boxes held vials containing fecal material from non-infected ducks. Feces from an LPAIV infected duck were considered the conditioned stimulus positive (CS+) as the ferrets were rewarded for alerting to it and feces from non-infected ducks were considered the conditioned stimulus negative (CS-).

Double-blind procedure
To avoid the possibility of the handler inadvertently communicating the position of the CS+ to the ferret, all sessions were conducted using a double-blind procedure. The coordinator positioned the CS+ and CS- scratch boxes, placed the board on the ground to signal the start of a trial, confirmed or rejected the ferret handler’s call (described in the next sentence), and picked up the board to position the boxes for the next trial. The ferret handler controlled when the ferrets were to start a trial, called out when a ferret alerted to one of the boxes, rewarded the ferret if the coordinator confirmed the choice (i.e., clicked the clicker and provided a small amount of FerretVite with a modified syringe), or picked up the ferret and walked away if the coordinator called the choice incorrect, and then faced away from the coordinator while the board was prepared for the next trial. This method was used for all trials that included the shaping of behavior, training, and experimental testing, specifically during rewarded trials but not during unrewarded trials.

A single daily session consisted of 12 trials. During initial training all correct selections were rewarded in all 12 trials. Once all ferrets demonstrated 75% accuracy in rewarded training trials, four extinction (training) or four generalization (testing) trials were introduced into each session (i.e., four non-rewarded extinction or generalization trials and 8 rewarded trials). The numbers of rewarded/unrewarded trials were determined experimentally in a previous study (PONE-D-20-11704R1) and based on instrumental learning theory. Extinction trials were no different than training trials except that the ferrets were not rewarded for correct selections. Whereas the stimuli presented during extinction trials were the same fecal samples that are presented in rewarded training trials, unrewarded generalization trials consisted of novel (a condition or design element that the ferrets had not previously experienced) stimuli. Because the ferrets experienced a neutral response from the handler immediately following an extinction or a generalization trial, we assumed that little or no learning occurred during these trials. An overview of the training and testing that used these methods can be found in Table 1 of Golden et al. (2021).

Demonstration of learned response
To train ferrets to respond to fecal samples from novel individual ducks and inoculation doses for mallards infected with LPAIV, rewarded trial CS+ samples consisted of fecal samples from novel individual ducks from the 3 or 5 log10 EID50 H6N2 inoculation dose groups representing all collection days (i.e., collection days 2-14 post inoculation) where real time RT-PCR revealed ongoing viral shedding. We assumed these were the optimal sample days to use where there should be ongoing odor signals the ferrets were likely using as cues that were due to viral induced metabolic changes.

CS- samples consisted of samples from randomly chosen novel uninfected control individual ducks representing all collection days (days 0-14). Following two days of all rewarded training trials, we introduced unrewarded trials into the sessions. One session group that included four days of extinction trial sessions (n = 96) and a second session group that included three days of extinction trial sessions (n = 72). In the second session group, extinction trial CS+ samples consisted of samples from familiar ducks representing novel collection days (days 2-14) for that individual (fresh fecal samples). That is, CS+ samples used in the extinction trials were from the same ducks, but different collection days than previously used.

Each daily session included four extinction trials and eight rewarded trials per ferret randomly presented during twelve trials per session. The same fecal samples were used across all four days. After four days, the ferrets were performing at 85% or better and were able to move onto the next stage of testing with further extinction trials. The next three days of testing sessions used fresh samples from the same ducks, but novel collection days and consisted of 72 overall unrewarded extinction trials across the 6 ferrets, again with four extinction trials per ferret per day. After three days of this level of training, ferrets were performing at 85% or better. The performance at the end of these training trials indicated the ferrets were ready for testing sessions with novel samples (i.e., novel individual ducks) presented in unrewarded generalization trials.

Experiment 1 - Discrimination of feces from LPAIV infected ducks
The ferrets’ response to samples collected from novel ducks was examined in unrewarded generalization trials interspersed among rewarded trials. Rewarded trial CS+ samples consisted of randomly chosen novel individual ducks inoculated with the 3 or 5 log10 EID50 doses representing collection days 2-14. Generalization trial CS+ samples consisted of novel individual ducks inoculated with the 4 log10 EID50 dose and representing collection days 2-14. Generalization CS- samples consisted of control ducks representing collection days 1-14 and collection day 0 samples from infected ducks.

We again ran two testing sessions, one that included three days of generalization trial sessions and a second that included four days of generalization trial sessions. It was apparent after the first three days of testing that the collection day 0 from mallards inoculated at 4 log10 EID50 were being selected as CS+ at rates higher than anticipated. Despite a relatively high-performance mean accuracy of 81%, during these trials, we noticed that individual ferrets making the most errors were choosing the fecal samples from specific individual donors (mallards inoculated with 4 log10 EID50). We removed from testing and training all day 0 fecal samples from these specific donors because of these confounding effects (see Discussion). We then began the next four days of testing. Four days of running these reconfigured panels included 96 unrewarded generalization trials. Each daily session included four generalization trials presented during twelve trials per session. Each generalization trial consisted of one of 10 novel individual ducks inoculated at the 4 log10 EID50 dose representing sample collection across days 1-14.

Experiment 2a – Discrimination based on collection day
To examine if the time since infection for collection of fecal samples was utilized in making a correct choice in lieu of infection odor identity, ferrets were presented with novel duck fecal samples in unrewarded generalization trials consisting of a CS+ and three of four CS- samples coming from the identical collection day. The fourth CS- sample was from a differing collection day on the opposite end of the collection spectrum from the other four samples. For example, if the panel consisted of four collection day 3 samples, the remaining CS- sample would be from collection day 7, 14, or 10).

Rewarded trial CS- and CS+ samples consisted of randomly chosen control or infected fecal samples from individual ducks representing collection days 3-14. Generalization trial CS- samples consisted of samples from control ducks with 3 sample boxes representing collection days that matched the collection day of the CS+ (Table 2 in Golden et al. 2021). The fourth CS- sample box contained a sample from a completely different collection day. Three days of running these panel configurations included 72 unrewarded generalization trials.

Experiment 2b– Discrimination with dual CS+ samples
In order to further challenge the hypothesis that ferrets were merely choosing the sample that differed the most from the other samples, two CS+ samples from different individual ducks and with differing collection days from each other and from the CS- samples were included in the panel configurations for the generalization trials. All rewarded trial samples were from collection days 4-14 with CS- samples from control ducks and CS+ samples from infected ducks (any inoculation dose group). Generalization CS- samples consisted of control duck samples from the same collection day. Generalization CS+ samples were from two individual infected ducks from the same or differing collection days (Table 3 in Golden et al. 2021). This portion of the experiment utilized a single session for each ferret.

Additional generalization trials were conducted in which the 3 CS- samples and a CS+ sample presented were all from the same collection day and a second CS+ sample was from a differing collection day. Thus, only the odd CS+ had a different collection day in comparison to the remaining samples with the exception of trials with all the same collection day (Table 4 in Golden et al. 2021). Rewarded trial CS- and CS+ (any inoculation dose) samples were chosen across individual ducks from collection days 4-14. This portion of the experiment was a single session for each ferret.

Experiment 3a – Discrimination of novel live virus samples
We collected pre and post infection samples from a new cohort (cohort 2) of mallards reared and subsequently infected at CSU for use in unrewarded generalization trials. Feces from cohort 1 were used in rewarded trials. We ran these panel configurations for two days, resulting in 48 unrewarded generalization trials across the six ferrets.

Experiment 3b – LPAIV specificity testing
To determine if ferrets trained to detect an odor representative of LPAIV infection would generalize to fecal samples collected from ducks infected with a different virus, we conducted generalization trials with one control fecal sample from each duck cohort, a post NDV infection sample, a post ILTV infection sample, and one CS+ sample from a LPAI-infected duck (Table 5 in Golden et al. 2021) after a single day of reward training with cohort 1 samples. NDV and ILTV were chosen because infection by these pathogens result in respiratory/gastrointestinal effects and similar associated clinical manifestations (i.e., sneezing, coughing, diarrhea, and weight loss) in poultry. We ran specificity panels for three days which resulted in 72 unrewarded generalization trials.
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Golden, Glen J.
Originator: Grady, Meredith J.
Originator: McLean, Hailey E.
Originator: Shriner, Susan A.
Originator: Hartwig, Airn
Originator: Bowen, Richard A.
Originator: Kimball, Bruce A.
Publication_Date: 2021
Title:
Biodetection of a specific odor signature in mallard feces associated with infection by low pathogenic avian influenza A virus
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: PLOS One
Issue_Identification: 16(5): e0251841
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251841
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
See methodology section
Process_Date: Unknown
Back to Top
Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
Below you will find a list and description of the files available in this data publication.

DATA FILES (5)
Blue text is used to help denote columns that contain formulas. Also note there is summary information in the final rows/columns of these files.

1) \Data\2_LPAI_viral_shed_and_ferret_response_PLOS.xlsx: Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet file containing the results from the accuracy of the ferrets' response during training and testing to familiar fecal samples containing live LPAIV. Also included is viral shed timeline.

This file contains 4 worksheets, which are described below.

Worksheet 1 - 'Variable Descriptions' contains a list and description of the variables provided in this data file.
Variables include:
Worksheet Name = name of worksheet
Variable Name = name of variable
Variable Description = description of variable

Worksheet 2 - 'Viral Shedding Summary' contains means of the calibrated qPCR results of fecal samples from ducks inoculated with LPAIV across sample collection days.
Variables include:
1-14 = day after infection the sample was collected
Average = mean of viral shedding for all dosages on a specific collection day after infection
* See Golden et al. (2021) for more specifics on these data.

Worksheet 3 - 'Accuracy based on CD' (CD = collection data) contains accuracy of ferrets during training and testing.
Variables include:
A.I.D. = animal identification number
Date = date of training or testing
Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and ferret blind to location of CS+)
Trials = trial number (1-12)
Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (generalization)
Position = location of the fecal sample collected from ducks confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive)
CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_4 = fourth fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS+ = Identification of the infected duck that provided sample
Donor = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample in the CS+ box of the sample
CD = day pre or post infection that the sample was collected
Hit = a correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+
Miss = a incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-
Choice = the fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly
Alert = position of box ferret scratched at whether correctly or incorrectly
Result = denotes hit or miss
Identity = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample
Day = denotes day the fecal sample was collected

Worksheet 4 - 'Shed and % 0-14' contains a figure (and data) showing virus shedding (red line) imposed over ferret accuracy (grey bars).
Variables include:
Day = day of collection
Shed = viral shed
% Correct = accuracy of ferrets
SEM = standard error of the mean
* Also included is a graphic displaying the results.


2) \Data\3_Ferret_AI_10^4_testing_stats.xlsx: Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet file containing the results from the accuracy of the ferrets' response during testing to novel fecal samples containing live LPAIV with a novel viral dose.

This file contains 2 worksheets, which are described below.

Worksheet 1 - 'Variable Descriptions' contains a list and description of the variables provided in this data file.
Variables include:
Worksheet Name = name of worksheet
Variable Name = name of variable
Variable Description = description of variable

Worksheet 2 - 'LPAI 10^4 Test adj 4 days'
Variables include:
A.I.D. = animal identification number
Date = date of training or testing
Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and ferret blind to location of CS+)
Trials = trial number (1-12)
Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (generalization)
Position = location of the fecal sample collected from ducks confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive)
CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_4 = fourth fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS+ = Identification of the infected duck that provided sample
Donor = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample in the CS+ box of the sample
CD = day pre or post infection that the sample was collected
Hit = a correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+
Miss = a incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-
Choice = the fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly
Alert = position of box ferret scratched at whether correctly or incorrectly
Result = denotes hit or miss
Identity = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample
Day = denotes day the fecal sample was collected


3) \Data\4_Ferret_AI_collection_day_test_stats.xlsx: Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet file containing the results from the accuracy of the ferrets' response during testing to novel and familiar fecal samples in a panel that had four of the five samples collected all on the same collection day and one sample that was collected on a different day.

This file contains 3 worksheets, which are described below.

Worksheet 1 - 'Variable Descriptions' contains a list and description of the variables provided in this data file.
Variables include:
Worksheet Name = name of worksheet
Variable Name = name of variable
Variable Description = description of variable

Worksheet 2 - 'Collection Day Test': To determine if the time since infection was utilized in making a correct choice in lieu of infection odor identity, we challenged the ferrets by offering a panel where one CS- sample was from a different collection day in comparison to the remainder of the panel.
Variables include:
A.I.D. = animal identification number
Date = date of training or testing
Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and ferret blind to location of CS+)
Trials = trial number (1-12)
Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (generalization)
Position = location of the fecal sample collected from ducks confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive)
CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_4 = fourth fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS+ = Identification of the infected duck that provided sample
Donor = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample in the CS+ box of the sample
CD = day pre or post infection that the sample was collected
Hit = a correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+
Miss = a incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-
Choice = the fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly
Alert = position of box ferret scratched at whether correctly or incorrectly
Result = denotes hit or miss
Identity = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample
Day = denotes day the fecal sample was collected

Worksheet 3 - 'Two CS+ Panel': To determine if the time since infection was utilized in making a correct choice in lieu of infection odor identity, we challenged the ferrets by offering a panel where there were two potentially correct choices, but only one of the two choices represented an odd collection date.
Variables include:
A.I.D. = animal identification number
Date = date of training or testing
Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and ferret blind to location of CS+)
Trials = trial number (1-12)
Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (generalization)
Position 1 = location of the fecal sample collected from ducks confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive)
Position 2 = location of the 2nd fecal sample (if applicable) collected from ducks confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive)
CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS+ 2 = Identification of the infected duck that provided sample
CS+ 1 = Identification of the infected duck that provided sample
Donor = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample in the CS+ box of the sample
CD = day pre or post infection that the sample was collected
Hit = a correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+
Miss = a incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-
Choice = the fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly
Alert = position of box ferret scratched at whether correctly or incorrectly
Result = denotes hit or miss
Identity = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample
Day = denotes day the fecal sample was collected


4) \Data\5a_Ferret_AI_CSU_sample_test_stats.xlsx: Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet file containing the results from the accuracy of the ferrets' response during testing to novel fecal samples collected from a different cohort of ducks raised in a different environment and fed a different diet.

This file contains 2 worksheets, which are described below.

Worksheet 1 - 'Variable Descriptions' contains a list and description of the variables provided in this data file.
Variables include:
Worksheet Name = name of worksheet
Variable Name = name of variable
Variable Description = description of variable

Worksheet 2 - 'LPAI Cohort 2 sample test'
Variables include:
A.I.D. = animal identification number
Date = date of training or testing
Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and ferret blind to location of CS+)
Trials = trial number (1-12)
Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (generalization)
Position = location of the fecal sample collected from ducks confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive)
CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_4 = fourth fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS+ = Identification of the infected duck that provided sample
Donor = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample in the CS+ box of the sample
CD = day pre or post infection that the sample was collected
Hit = a correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+
Miss = a incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-
Choice = the fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly
Alert = position of box ferret scratched at whether correctly or incorrectly
Result = denotes hit or miss
Identity = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample
Day = denotes day the fecal sample was collected


5) \Data\5b_Ferret_LPAI_specificity_test_stats.xlsx: Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet file containing the results from the accuracy of the ferrets' response during testing to novel fecal samples including samples from ducks infected with alternate pathogens suggest to determine if the odor cue used by ferrets to detect avian influenza is specific to AIV infection and is not a general immune response resulting from infection.

This file contains 3 worksheets, which are described below.

Worksheet 1 - 'Variable Descriptions' contains a list and description of the variables provided in this data file.
Variables include:
Worksheet Name = name of worksheet
Variable Name = name of variable
Variable Description = description of variable

Worksheet 2 - 'Specificity Test': To determine if ferrets identified the location of the single sample derived from an infected donor based on a pathogen specific infection odor, ferrets trained to detect an odor representative of LPAIV infection were tested with a panel that included fecal samples negative for LPAIV infection but collected from ducks infected with Newcastle's Disease Virus and/or infectious laryngotracheitis in addition to non-infected controls.
Variables include:
A.I.D. = animal identification number
Date = date of training or testing
Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and ferret blind to location of CS+)
Trials = trial number (1-12)
Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (generalization)
Position = location of the fecal sample collected from ducks confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive)
CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected, Newcastles disease virus infected-, or infectious laryngotracheitis infected duck location
CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS-_4 = fourth fecal sample from noninfected duck location
CS+ = Identification of the infected duck that provided sample
Donor = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample in the CS+ box of the sample
CD = day pre or post infection that the sample was collected
Hit = a correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+
Miss = a incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-
Choice = the fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly
Alert = position of box ferret scratched at whether correctly or incorrectly
Result = denotes hit or miss
Identity = animal identification number for the duck supplying fecal sample
Day = denotes day the fecal sample was collected

Worksheet 3 - 'Positive sample key' contains a color-coded key that explains how testing (generalization) trials were structured.
Five panels (the five boxes in each trial), which include:
1 fecal sample from non-infected cohort 1 duck
1 fecal sample from non-infected cohort 2 duck
1 fecal sample from infectious laryngotracheitis virus infected cohort 2 duck
1 fecal sample from Newcastles disease virus infected cohort 2 duck
1 fecal sample from avian influenza virus infected cohort 2 duck
Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
Golden, Glen J.; Grady, Meredith J.; McLean, Hailey E.; Shriner, Susan A.; Hartwig, Airn; Bowen, Richard A.; Kimball, Bruce A. 2021. Biodetection of a specific odor signature in mallard feces associated with infection by low pathogenic avian influenza A virus. PLOS One 16(5): e0251841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251841
Back to Top
Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: USDA Forest Service, Research and Development
Contact_Position: Research Data Archivist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical
Address: 240 West Prospect Road
City: Fort Collins
State_or_Province: CO
Postal_Code: 80526
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: see Contact Instructions
Contact Instructions: This contact information was current as of May 2021. For current information see Contact Us page on: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS.
Resource_Description: NWRC-RDS-2021-001
Distribution_Liability:
Metadata documents have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Unless otherwise stated, all data and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. However, neither the author, the Archive, nor any part of the federal government can assure the reliability or suitability of these data for a particular purpose. The act of distribution shall not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed for a user's application of these data or related materials.

The metadata, data, or related materials may be updated without notification. If a user believes errors are present in the metadata, data or related materials, please use the information in (1) Identification Information: Point of Contact, (2) Metadata Reference: Metadata Contact, or (3) Distribution Information: Distributor to notify the author or the Archive of the issues.
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: XLSX
Format_Version_Number: see Format Specification
Format_Specification:
Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet file
File_Decompression_Technique: Files zipped with 7-Zip 19.0
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2021-001
Fees: None
Back to Top
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20210527
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Person_Primary:
Contact_Person: Glen J. Golden
Contact_Organization: Colorado State University ; USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center
Contact_Position: Research Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical
Address: Colorado State University
Address: 1683 Campus Delivery
City: Fort Collins
State_or_Province: CO
Postal_Code: 80523-1683
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 970-266-6082
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: glen.golden@colostate.edu
Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001.1-1999
Back to Top