Biodetection data: Using odor signature in white-tailed deer associated with infection by Chronic Wasting Disease prions

Metadata:

Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Golden, Glen J.
Originator: Ramirez, Elizabeth A.
Originator: Stevens, Hayley N.
Originator: Bourbois, Jennifer
Originator: Grove, Daniel M.
Originator: Bowen, Richard A.
Originator: DeLiberto, Thomas J.
Originator: Kimball, Bruce A.
Publication_Date: 2024
Title:
Biodetection data: Using odor signature in white-tailed deer associated with infection by Chronic Wasting Disease prions
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: spreadsheet
Series_Information:
Series_Name: Research Dataset Series
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Fort Collins, Colorado
Publisher: USDA, APHIS, WS National Wildlife Research Center
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2024-001
Description:
Abstract:
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) has become a major concern amongst those involved in managing wild and captive cervid populations. CWD is a fatal, highly transmissible spongiform encephalopathy caused by an abnormally folded protein, called a prion. Prions are present in a number of tissues, including feces and urine in CWD infected animals, suggesting multiple modes of transmission, including animal-to-animal, environmental, and fomite. CWD management is complicated by the lack of a practical, non-invasive, live-animal screening tests. This study involved training canine biodetectors in 2021-2022, to identify populations and/or individuals infected with CWD via detection of feces odors. Dogs were trained to detect and discriminate CWD infected white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from non-infected white-tailed deer, obtained from targeted removal events conducted throughout the United States and several counties in western Tennessee, in a laboratory setting at the National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. Dogs were also transitioned from alerting to fecal samples to whole body odor using different sections of gastrointestinal tracts. This data publication provides data that describe the 1-in-5 bioassay for each experiments. Data include accuracy of dogs in training (January-August 2021), discrimination of feces from CWD infected white-tailed deer (August-September 2021), and transition to detection of CWD-positive volatile odors in tissue samples (October 2022).
Purpose:
We hypothesized that the success of dogs in detecting avian influenza virus infection in mallard fecal samples could be repeated using dogs to detect fecal samples from CWD infected in comparison to non-infected white-tailed deer. We also conducted an experiment to determine if dogs could generalize what they learned from the odor of fecal samples from CWD infected deer to other body tissues (i.e., small intestine).
Supplemental_Information:
For more information about this study and these data, see Golden et al. (2024).
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 20210121
Ending_Date: 20221027
Currentness_Reference:
Ground condition
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: As needed
Spatial_Domain:
Description_of_Geographic_Extent:
Animals were trained at the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), Fort Collins, CO where they were housed, trained, and tested.

White-tailed deer (WTD) samples came from targeted removal events conducted throughout the United States as well as targeted removal efforts from several counties in western Tennessee.
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -128
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -65
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 53
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 20
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: United States
Place_Keyword: Colorado
Place_Keyword: Tennessee
Taxonomy:
Keywords/Taxon:
Taxonomic_Keyword_Thesaurus:
None
Taxonomic_Keywords: mammals
Taxonomic_Keywords: multiple species
Taxonomic_System:
Classification_System/Authority:
Classification_System_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: ITIS
Publication_Date: 2024
Title:
Integrated Taxonomic Information System
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: database
Other_Citation_Details:
Retrieved [July, 9, 2024]; CC0
Online_Linkage: https://www.itis.gov/
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7KH0KBK
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
Applicable_Common_Name: triploblasts
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: Canidae
Applicable_Common_Name: coyotes
Applicable_Common_Name: dogs
Applicable_Common_Name: foxes
Applicable_Common_Name: jackals
Applicable_Common_Name: wolves
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Canis
Applicable_Common_Name: dogs
Applicable_Common_Name: foxes
Applicable_Common_Name: jackals
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Canis lupus
Applicable_Common_Name: Wolf
Applicable_Common_Name: Gray Wolf
Applicable_Common_Name: Lobo gris
Applicable_Common_Name: loup
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subspecies
Taxon_Rank_Value: Canis lupus familiaris
Applicable_Common_Name: domestic dog
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
Taxon_Rank_Value: Artiodactyla
Applicable_Common_Name: artiodactyls
Applicable_Common_Name: porco do mato
Applicable_Common_Name: veado
Applicable_Common_Name: cloven-hoofed ungulates
Applicable_Common_Name: even-toed ungulates
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
Taxon_Rank_Value: Cervidae
Applicable_Common_Name: cervids
Applicable_Common_Name: caribou
Applicable_Common_Name: deer
Applicable_Common_Name: moose
Applicable_Common_Name: wapiti
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Subfamily
Taxon_Rank_Value: Capreolinae
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
Taxon_Rank_Value: Odocoileus
Applicable_Common_Name: mule deer
Applicable_Common_Name: white-tailed deer
Taxonomic_Classification:
Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
Taxon_Rank_Value: Odocoileus virginianus
Applicable_Common_Name: white-tailed deer
Applicable_Common_Name: Venado cola blanca
Applicable_Common_Name: cerf de Virginie
Applicable_Common_Name: White-tailed Deer
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.; Ramirez, Elizabeth A.; Stevens, Hayley N.; Bourbois, Jennifer; Grove, Daniel; Bowen, Richard A.; DeLiberto, Thomas J.; Kimball, Bruce A. 2024. Biodetection data: Using odor signature in white-tailed deer associated with infection by Chronic Wasting Disease prions. Research Dataset Series. USDA, APHIS, WS National Wildlife Research Center. Ft. Collins, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2024-001
Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Colorado State University; USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center
Contact_Person: Glen J. Golden
Contact_Position: Research Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical
Address: Colorado State University
Address: 1682 Campus Delivery
City: Fort Collins
State_or_Province: CO
Postal_Code: 80523-1683
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 267-884-6941
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: glen.golden@colostate.edu
Contact Instructions: This contact information was current as of original publication date. For current information see Contact Us page on: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS.
Data_Set_Credit:
This project was funded by 1) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA, APHIS), Veterinary Services; 2) Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; and 3) USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center.


Author Information:

Glen J. Golden
Colorado State University; USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4080-2414

Elizabeth A. Ramirez
Colorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences

Hayley N. Stevens
Colorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences

Bourbois, Jennifer
Colorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences

Daniel M. Grove
University of Tennessee, School of Natural Resources

Richard A. Bowen
Colorado State University, Department of Biomedical Sciences
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7576-2881

Thomas J. DeLiberto
USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-1472

Bruce A. Kimball
Monell Chemical Senses Center
Cross_Reference:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Golden, Glen J.
Originator: Ramirez, Elizabeth A.
Originator: Stevens, Hayley N.
Originator: Bourbois, Jennifer
Originator: Grove, Daniel M.
Originator: Bowen, Richard A.
Originator: DeLiberto, Thomas J.
Originator: Kimball, Bruce A.
Publication_Date: 2024
Title:
Biodetection of an odor signature in white-tailed deer associated with infection by chronic wasting disease prions
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: PLOS ONE
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.24.590903
Back to Top
Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
Once dogs proved to be reliable in their response to the CS+ (positive conditioned stimulus), the dogs and the handler were blind to the location of the CS+ to avoid the possibility of the handler inadvertently communicating the position of the CS+ to the dog. An impartial coordinator positioned the CS+ and CS- (negative conditioned stimulus) scratch boxes, signaled the start of a trial, confirmed or rejected the dog handler’s call (described in the next sentence), and picked up the boxes from the previous trial to position the boxes for the next trial. The dog handler controlled when the dogs were to start a trial, called out when a dog alerted to one of the boxes, rewarded the dog if the coordinator confirmed the choice (i.e., clicked the clicker and provided a small food treat or 15 seconds play with a ball or other toy), or without providing verbal or visual cues, turned and walked away if the coordinator called the choice incorrect. The handler and dog were positioned behind a visual barrier prior to the start of each trial as the coordinator prepared the location of the scratch boxes. This procedure was used for all trials that included the shaping of behavior, training, and experimental testing, specifically during rewarded trials but not during unrewarded trials.
Logical_Consistency_Report:
Cumulative responses across all trained dog trials were calculated for each set of experimental generalization trials. Success rates (number of correct trials divided by the total number of generalization trials) were statistically evaluated using binomial proportion tests with a continuity correction for small numbers of observations. The data were tested for independence between donor identity, testing day, and correct responses using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. For all experiments, a success rate of 20% would be expected by chance. However, as the goal of these trials was to demonstrate the high specificity of trained biodetectors, dog responses were also compared to 50% and 80% success rates.
Completeness_Report:
No data are missing or intentionally withheld.
Lineage:
Methodology:
Methodology_Type: Laboratory
Methodology_Description:
OVERVIEW

Animals were maintained in a kennel at the National Wildlife Research Center located in Fort Collins, CO. Domesticated dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were trained to display a specific conditioned response (i.e., passive sit alert) in response to the odor of feces from chronic wasting disease infected white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) during training and testing.


DATA COLLECTION

The coordinator, who was responsible for choosing samples, arranging the samples for presentation, and responded as to the accuracy of a dog’s box choice was also responsible for correctly recording the response onto a daily sheet. The sheet was then scanned and data entered into a spreadsheet for analysis.


Biodetectors:

Criteria for selecting dogs to serve as potential biodetectors included physical examination, cephalic morphology, and behavioral testing. Once a candidate was identified, other criteria were considered prior to acquisition. This included gender, age, and individual behavioral testing. Dogs were expected to make a discrimination in a complex odor environment that consisted largely of odor cues that will potentially consist of older, decaying sources, as well as fresh fecal samples. Due to these stringent demands, individuals with a strong, enduring motivation to work were considered as having greater potential for success. Six dogs were chosen from shelter and rescue populations from several states and tested for motivation using a modified version of the ball test developed by Working Dogs for Conservation (2024).


White-tailed Deer (WTD) Feces Stimuli:

Fecal samples were obtained from WTD (Odocoileus virginianus). CWD infection status was identified based on real-time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC), immunohistochemistry (IHC), or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) from brain tissue, lymph node tissue, or both for confirmation of CWD infection. Samples that were confirmed positive for CWD were categorized as “CWD-positive” and samples in which CWD was not detected were categorized as “CWD-negative”.


Cohort 1:

The National Cervid Health Center provided 352 farmed WTD fecal samples collected during targeted removal events conducted throughout the United States. Information for samples included regional origin, sex, age, codon 96 genotype, and RT-QuIC or IHC results from brain tissue, lymph node tissue, or both for confirmation of CWD infection. Fecal samples (1 gram [g]) were placed in 1 millimeter (ml) glass vials with screwcap lids (Qorpak, Bridgeville, PA, USA). Sufficient sample material was provided to yield one or more 1 g aliquots.


Cohort 2:

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) provided 166 wild WTD fecal samples collected from hunter harvested animals and animals removed during targeted removal efforts. Samples originated from several counties in western Tennessee. Some of these counties had not yet had a confirmed case of CWD and the others came from areas with reported CWD prevalence ranging from 0.1% to 50%. For example, the number of CWD infected WTD on Ames Plantation brought into the hunter check station was approximately 46%. Sample information included sample origin county and GPS coordinates, sex, age, and CWD infection status determined with CWD ELISA. Fecal samples (1 g) were transferred to 1-mL vials.


Cohort 3:

TWRA provided 81 wild WTD gastrointestinal tract (GI) samples collected from hunter harvested and targeted removal deer. Thirty additional were subsequently provided after experiments had begun. Samples originated from several counties in western Tennessee. Sample information included origin (including GPS coordinates), sex, age, and infection status determined by CWD ELISA. Three or more 1 g aliquots of colon or small intestine were place in 1-mL vials following dissection.


Presentation of samples and the dogs’ behavioral response:

Laboratory training occurred at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, CO using samples from both the Cervid Health Archive (farmed WTD) and samples collected at Ames Plantation in Tennessee (wild WTD). Additionally, field training has been conducted in the CWD-endemic region in southwest Tennessee in which dogs were trained in the busy center of a working farm on Ames Plantation. As with the ferrets (Golden et al. 2021), dogs were trained using 1 in 5 bioassays. Important procedural changes were made to the sample presentation in comparison to the ferrets. Each of the five scratch boxes were attached to the top of one of two stacked 1 foot³ (ft³) scent boxes (Ray Allen Manufacturing, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) so the scratch box (described below) would be close to nose level for all six dogs. The scent box stacks were spaced 1 meter (m) apart and dogs were trained to use a passive alert (i.e., sit) when detecting CWD-positive fecal samples (see Figure 1 in Golden et al. 2024).

A session consisted of 20 trials for each of the six dogs with the position of each box being pseudo-randomized for each trial. During initial training for the passive “sit” response, it took 8 sessions to solidify the desired behavioral response.

For a detailed description of the presentation of fecal samples, please refer to Golden et al. (2021). Briefly, the scratch boxes were configured to hold a 1 ml glass vial fitted with filter paper that allowed for the escape of volatiles but not the material placed in the vial (approximately 1 g of feces per vial). One randomly positioned box of the five held a vial containing fecal material collected from a CWD infected WTD. The remaining four boxes held vials containing fecal material collected from CWD-negative WTD. Feces from a CWD infected WTD were considered the conditioned stimulus positive (CS+) as the dogs were rewarded for alerting to it and feces from CWD-negative WTD were considered the conditioned stimulus negative (CS-).

For the presentation of GI tract samples, the base compartment of each plastic box (16.48 centimeter [cm] x 12.34 cm x 7.6 cm; Glad Products Company, Oakland, CA, USA) was customized with 1 inch thick foam cut to allow for the retention of a 4 ounce (oz) glass mason jar (6.00 cm height x 6.35 cm diameter; Homrove, Amazon, USA). Mason jar collar caps (metal septum-type screw caps with a 6.35 cam diameter opening) were fitted with 70 millimeter (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 (approximately 1 g of GI colon or small intestine per mason jar). One randomly positioned box of the five held a mason jar containing either an approximately 1 g section of colon or small intestine collected from a CWD infected WTD. The remaining four boxes held mason jars containing GI tract tissue collected from CWD-negative WTD. Sections of colon or small intestine from a CWD infected WTD were considered the conditioned stimulus positive (CS+) as the dogs were rewarded for alerting to it and sections of colon or small intestine from CWD-negative WTD were considered the conditioned stimulus negative (CS-).

During training and subsequent testing, a “correct” selection by the dog is the alert given to a 0.01 anethole sample (see Table 1, Training 1 in Golden et al. 2024, which is also provided in \Supplements\Golden_etal_2024_Tables1-2.pdf). When an individual dog correctly alerted to the box containing the CS+ sample, a clicker was activated, and the dog was rewarded with either toys (e.g., tennis or lacrosse balls) or various food treats (e.g., home-made tuna treats, Happy Howie’s) depending on which motivated it best. There was no food restriction and water was available ad libitum during training and off-training hours. It is important to note that 20% was the level chance of detecting the CS+ box as only 1 of 5 boxes contained a rewarded sample.


Odor alert response and odor discrimination training:

For the methods in next three stages of training please refer to Table 1, Training 2-4 in Golden et al. (2024) (which is also provided in \Supplements\Golden_etal_2024_Tables1-2.pdf) and Golden et al. (2021). While shaping behavior in these early stages, achieving the target of 80% accuracy average for all dogs was considered sufficient and the next training level was initiated.

We define an extinction trial as a trial consisting of CS+ and CS- samples that are familiar to the dog (i.e., in terms of the quality, intensity, or donor identity) but is not rewarded or acknowledged in any way.


Demonstration of learned response:

For detailed explanation of methods in the preparation for Experiments 1 and 2 (Demonstration 1, Steps 1-3) please refer to Table 2 in Golden et al. (2024) (which is also provided in \Supplements\Golden_etal_2024_Tables1-2.pdf) and Golden et al. (2021). While shaping behavior in these early stages, achieving the target of 80% accuracy average for all dogs was considered sufficient and the next training level was initiated.


Experiment 1 - Discrimination of feces from CWD infected WTD:

The dogs’ responses to samples collected from novel WTD was examined in unrewarded generalization trials interspersed among unrewarded extinction and rewarded trials in four testing sessions on consecutive days (Table 2, Experiment 1 in Golden et al. 2024, which is also provided in \Supplements\Golden_etal_2024_Tables1-2.pdf). We defined non-rewarded generalization trials here as a trial consisting of CS+ and CS- samples that are novel to the dog (i.e., in terms of the quality, intensity, or donor identity) but is not rewarded or acknowledged in any way. In each session, there were 14 rewarded trials, 3 unrewarded extinction trials and 3 unrewarded generalization trials. There had to be at least 2 rewarded trials prior to either type of unrewarded trial to begin a session, at least 1 rewarded trial between unrewarded trials, and at least one rewarded trial to end the session. Rewarded trial CS+ samples consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-positive WTD from Cohorts 1 and 2. Rewarded trial CS- samples consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-negative WTD from Cohort 1.

Extinction trial CS+ samples (3 per session) consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-positive WTD from Cohort 1. Extinction trial CS- samples consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-negative WTD from Cohort 2. Generalization trial CS+ samples (3 per session) consisted of randomly chosen novel individual CWD-positive WTD from Cohort 1. Generalization trial CS- samples consisted of randomly chosen novel individual CWD-negative WTD from Cohort 1.


Experiment 2 – Transition to detection of CWD-positive volatile odors in tissue samples:

To determine if dogs can be trained to generalize responses from the odor profile of feces to the odor profile of a GI tissue sample from the same animal, dogs previously trained with defecated feces were also trained with samples of excised colon (approximately 1 g and containing feces) in all rewarded generalization trials consisting of a CS+ and four CS- samples and similarly tested with unfamiliar samples not offered during training.

Six days of testing sessions were conducted over two weeks. In each session, there were 14 rewarded trials, 3 unrewarded extinction trials and 3 unrewarded generalization trials. There were at least 2 rewarded trials prior to either type of unrewarded trial to begin a session, at least 1 rewarded trial between unrewarded trials, and at least on rewarded trial to end the session. The reward trials were a mixture of colon and small intestine tissues collected from familiar donors. The extinction trials were familiar colon and small intestine samples. The generalization trials consisted of an entire panel of novel small intestine samples.


Field training - Discrimination of feces in the field:

Following two days of blind, all reward training sessions, the dogs’ responses to samples collected from WTD were examined in unrewarded extinction trials interspersed among rewarded trials in a single outdoor single-blind training session (Table 2, Field Training in Golden et al. 2024, which is also provided in \Supplements\Golden_etal_2024_Tables1-2.pdf). In this session, there were 14 rewarded trials and 6 unrewarded extinction trials. There had to be at least 2 rewarded trials prior to either type of unrewarded trial to begin a session, at least 1 rewarded trial between unrewarded trials, and at least one rewarded trial to end the session.

Rewarded trial CS+ samples consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-positive WTD from Cohort 2. Rewarded trial CS- samples consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-negative WTD from Cohorts 1 and 2. Extinction trial CS+ samples (6 per session) consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-positive WTD from Cohort 2. Extinction trial CS- samples consisted of randomly chosen familiar individual CWD-negative WTD from Cohorts 1 and 2.


For complete details, see Golden et al. (2024).
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Golden, Glen J.
Originator: Ramirez, Elizabeth A.
Originator: Stevens, Hayley N.
Originator: Bourbois, Jennifer
Originator: Grove, Daniel M.
Originator: Bowen, Richard A.
Originator: DeLiberto, Thomas J.
Originator: Kimball, Bruce A.
Publication_Date: 2024
Title:
Biodetection of an odor signature in white-tailed deer associated with infection by chronic wasting disease prions
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: PLOS ONE
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.24.590903
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Golden, Glen J.
Originator: Opiekun, Maryanne
Originator: Martin-Taylor, Talia
Originator: Kimball, Bruce A.
Publication_Date: 2021
Title:
Training the domestic ferret to discriminate odors associated with wildlife disease
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: journal article
Series_Information:
Series_Name: PLOS ONE
Issue_Identification: 16(11): e0259415
Online_Linkage: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259415
Methodology_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Working Dogs for Conservation
Publication_Date: 2024
Title:
Rescues2theRescue
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: website
Other_Citation_Details:
[cited 2024 January 3]
Online_Linkage: https://www.rescues2therescue.org/
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
No process steps have been described for this data set.
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 included in this data publication.

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION FILE (1)

1. \Data\_variable_descriptions.csv: Comma-separated values (CSV) file containing a list and description of variables found in all data files. (This same content is also provided as a separate worksheet within each of the XLSX files included in this data package and are also fully defined in those file descriptions below.)

Columns include:
Filename = name of data file
Worksheet = name of worksheet within the specified file
Variable = name of variable
Description = description of variable



DATA FILES (3)

1. \Data\Demo_learned_responses_Jan-Aug2021.xlsx: Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet (XLSX) file containing multiple worksheets that contain the following data: i) accuracy of dogs during early training using a passive sit alert to indicate the location of the CWD-positive sample in comparison to ‘odorless’ propylene glycol (PG); ii) accuracy of dogs in training using a single panel with four different CWD-positive samples; iii) accuracy of dogs in training using a 80 Cohort 1 CWD-negative fecal samples (4 in each of 20 trials) and 20 Cohort 1 (1 in each of 20 trials) CWD-positive samples; and iv) accuracy of dogs in training using a 80 CWD-negative fecal samples (4 in each of 20 trials) and 20 (1 in each of 20 trials) CWD-positive samples from Cohorts 1 and 2. Study done from January to August 2021.

This file contains 5 worksheets, which are described below.

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


Worksheet 2 - '4 CS+ vs PG': accuracy of dogs during early training using a passive sit alert to indicate the location of the CWD-positive sample in comparison to ‘odorless’ propylene glycol (PG).

Variables include:

A.I.D. = animal identification number

Date = date of training or testing (mm/dd/yyyy)

Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and dog blind to location of CS+) (Y=yes, N=no)

Paired = was fecal sample paired with food or tennis ball skin (Y=yes, N=no)

Trials = trial number (1-20)

Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (extinction or generalization) (R=reward, E=extinction, G=generalization)

Position = location of the fecal sample collected from white-tailed deer (WTD) confirmed to be infected with CWD (confirmed positive) (1-5)

CS-_1 = location of the first propylene glycol (PG) sample

CS-_2 = location of the second propylene glycol (PG) sample

CS-_3 = location of the third propylene glycol (PG) sample

CS-_4 = location of the fourth propylene glycol (PG) sample

CS+ = identification of the CWD infected WTD that provided sample

Hit = correct choice as shown by "sit" alert at the box containing the CS+

Miss = incorrect choice as shown by "sit" alert at the box containing any CS-

Choice = fecal sample in the box chosen whether correctly or incorrectly

Alert = position of the box where the dog performed the "sit" alert whether it was a correct or incorrect response (1-5)

Result = result of the trial (hit or miss)

Sample Origin = origin (e.g., region or geographic location) of the fecal sample in the box chosen correctly

Sex = was the donor male (M) or female (F) (or UNK=unknown)

CWD Status = CWD infection status; shown by tissue tested and result for correct choices ('POS LN'=confirmed positive using lymph nodes, Neg=nonconfirmed for CWD samples, 'Pos'=confirmed for CWD samples, and 'Pos Brain & LN'=confirmed positive using brain and lymph nodes)


Worksheet 3 - '4 CS+ vs 4 CS-': accuracy of dogs in training using a single panel with four different CWD-positive samples.

Variables descriptions for Worksheets 3-5 are the same. Variables include:

A.I.D. = animal identification number

Date = date of training or testing (mm/dd/yyyy)

Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and dog blind to location of CS+) (Y=yes, N=no)

Paired = was fecal sample paired with food or tennis ball skin (Y=yes, N=no)

Trials = trial number (1-20)

Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (extinction or generalization) (R=reward, G=generalization, E=extinction)

Position = location of the fecal sample collected from white-tailed deer (WTD) confirmed to be infected with CWD (confirmed positive) (1-5)

CS-_1 = location of the first fecal sample from unconfirmed WTD

CS-_2 = location of the second fecal sample from unconfirmed WTD

CS-_3 = location of the third fecal sample from unconfirmed WTD

CS-_4 = location of the fourth fecal sample from unconfirmed WTD

CS+ = identification of the CWD infected WTD that provided sample

Hit = correct choice as shown by "sit" alert at the box containing the CS+

Miss = incorrect choice as shown by "sit" alert at the box containing any CS-

Choice = fecal sample in the box chosen whether correctly or incorrectly

Alert = position of the box where the dog performed the "sit" alert whether it was a correct or incorrect response (1-5)

Result = result of the trial (hit or miss)

Sample Origin = origin (e.g., region or geographic location) of the fecal sample in the box chosen correctly

Sex = was the donor male (M) or female (F)

CWD Status = CWD infection status; shown by tissue tested and result for correct choices ('POS LN'=confirmed positive using lymph nodes, Neg=nonconfirmed for CWD samples, 'Pos'=confirmed for CWD samples, and 'Pos Brain & LN'=confirmed positive using brain and lymph nodes)


Worksheet 4 - '20 CS+ vs 80 CS-': accuracy of dogs in training using a 80 Cohort 1 CWD-negative fecal samples (4 in each of 20 trials) and 20 Cohort 1 (1 in each of 20 trials) CWD-positive samples. (See variable descriptions provided for Worksheet 3 above.)


Worksheet 5 - '20 CS+ vs 80 CS- TN': accuracy of dogs in training using a 80 CWD-negative fecal samples (4 in each of 20 trials) and 20 (1 in each of 20 trials) CWD-positive samples from Cohorts 1 and 2. (See variable descriptions provided for Worksheet 3 above.)



2. \Data\Fecal_Exp_Analysis_Aug-Sep2021.xlsx: XLSX file containing data on the accuracy of dogs being tested using 12 novel CWD-negative fecal samples (4 in each of 3 of 20 trials) and 3 novel (1 in each of 3 of 20 trials) CWD-positive samples from Cohort 1 during generalization trials. Study was done from August 31, 2021 through September 01, 2021.

Variables include:

A.I.D. = animal identification number

Date = date of training or testing (mm/dd/yyyy)

Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and dog blind to location of CS+) (Y=yes)

Paired = was fecal sample paired with food or tennis ball skin (Y=yes, N=no)

Trials = trial number (1-20)

Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (extinction or generalization) (R=reward, G=generalization, E=extinction)

Position = location of the fecal sample collected from white-tailed deer confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive) (1-5)

CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS-_4 = fourth fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS+ = Identification of the infected white-tailed deer that provided sample

Hit = correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+

Miss = incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-

Choice = fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly

Alert = position of box dog sat at whether correctly or incorrectly (1-5)

Result = result of the trial (hit or miss)

Sample Origin = Region where white-tailed deer herd depopulation occurred

Sex = was the donor male (M) or female (F) (UNK=unknown)

Age (months) = age of the donor in months (UNK=unknown)

CWD Status = CWD infection status; shown by tissue tested and result for correct choices ('POS LN'=confirmed positive using lymph nodes, Neg=nonconfirmed for CWD samples, 'Pos'=confirmed for CWD samples, and 'Pos Brain & LN'=confirmed positive using brain and lymph nodes)



3. \Data\GI_Tract_Exp_Analysis_Oct2022.xlsx: XLSX file containing data on the accuracy of dogs being tested in their ability to generalize to a tissue (i.e., small intestine) from novel donors using 8 CWD-negative small intestine samples (8 in each of 2 generalization trials of 20 trials) and 2 (2 in each of 2 generalization trials of 20 trials) CWD-positive small intestine samples from Cohort 3. Study was done from October 11-13, 2022 and October 25-27, 2022.

Variables include:

A.I.D. = animal identification number

Date = date of training or testing (mm/dd/yyyy)

Blind = double-blind status (trial run with handler and dogt blind to location of CS+) (Y=yes)

Trials = trial number (1-20)

Reward = rewarded trial or non-rewarded trial (extinction or generalization) (R=reward, G=generalization, E=extinction)

Position = location of the fecal sample collected from white-tailed deer confirmed by PCR to contain avian influenza virus (confirmed positive) (1-5)

CS-_1 = first fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS-_2 = second fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS-_3 = third fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS-_4 = fourth fecal sample from noninfected white-tailed deer location

CS+ = Identification of the infected white-tailed deer that provided sample

Hit = correct choice by scratch alert on the box containing the CS+

Miss = incorrect choice by scratch alert on the box containing any CS-

Choice = fecal sample in the box chosen incorrectly

Alert = position of box dog sat at whether correctly or incorrectly (1-5)

Result = result of the trial (hit or miss)

Tissue Type = describes if sample is collected from the colon (Colon) or the small intestine (Intestine)

Sample Origin = Region where white-tailed deer herd depopulation occurred (Ames=Ames Plantation, 'Pres Island'=President Island, 'SW TN'=southwestern Tennessee)

Sex = was the donor male (M) or female (F)

Age (months) = the age of the donor in months (if known)

CWD Status = CWD infection status; shown by tissue tested and result for correct choices ('POS LN'=confirmed positive using lymph nodes, Neg=nonconfirmed for CWD samples, 'Pos'=confirmed for CWD samples, and 'Pos Brain & LN'=confirmed positive using brain and lymph nodes)



SUPPLEMENTAL FILES (1)

1. \Supplements\Golden_etal_2024_Tables1-2.pdf: Portable Document Format file containing Tables 1 and 2 from Golden et al. (2024). Table 1 contains an overview of the four types of training used in this study and Table 2 contains specific details about the demonstration and experiments in this study.
Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
Golden, Glen J.; Ramirez, Elizabeth A.; Stevens, Hayley N.; Bourbois, Jennifer; Grove, Daniel M.; Bowen, Richard A.; DeLiberto, Thomas J.; Kimball, Bruce A. 2024. Biodetection of an odor signature in white-tailed deer associated with infection by chronic wasting disease prions. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.24.590903
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 July 2024. For current information see Contact Us page on: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS.
Resource_Description: NWRC-RDS-2024-001
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: CSV
Format_Version_Number: see Format Specification
Format_Specification:
Comma-separated values file
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2024-001
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: XLSX
Format_Version_Number: see Format Specification
Format_Specification:
Microsoft Excel Open XML spreadsheet file
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2024-001
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: PDF
Format_Version_Number: see Format Specification
Format_Specification:
Portable Document Format file
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Online_Option:
Computer_Contact_Information:
Network_Address:
Network_Resource_Name: https://doi.org/10.2737/NWRC-RDS-2024-001
Fees: None
Back to Top
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20240709
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Colorado State University; USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center
Contact_Person: Glen J. Golden
Contact_Position: Research Scientist
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical
Address: Colorado State University
Address: 1682 Campus Delivery
City: Fort Collins
State_or_Province: CO
Postal_Code: 80523-1683
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 267-884-6941
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: glen.golden@colostate.edu
Contact Instructions: This contact information was current as of original publication date. For current information see Contact Us page on: https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS.
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