Deciphering Serology to Understand the Ecology of Infectious Diseases in Wildlife

Abstract

The ecology of infectious disease in wildlife has become a pivotal theme in animal and public health. Studies of infectious disease ecology rely on robust surveillance of pathogens in reservoir hosts, often based on serology, which is the detection of specific antibodies in the blood and is used to infer infection history. However, serological data can be inaccurate for inference to infection history for a variety of reasons. Two major aspects in any serological test can substantially impact results and interpretation of antibody prevalence data: cross-reactivity and cut-off thresholds used to discriminate positive and negative reactions. Given the ubiquitous use of serology as a tool for surveillance and epidemiological modeling of wildlife diseases, it is imperative to consider the strengths and limitations of serological test methodologies and interpretation of results, particularly when using data that may affect management and policy for the prevention and control of infectious diseases in wildlife. Greater consideration of population age structure and cohort representation, serological test suitability and standardized sample collection protocols can ensure that reliable data are obtained for downstream modeling applications to characterize, and evaluate interventions for, wildlife disease systems.

Introduction

Globally, emerging infectious diseases represent a threat to human and animal health (Daszak et al. 2000; Woolhouse et al. 2008). Most emerging diseases originate from wildlife (Taylor et al. 2001), where they may infect multiple animal hosts (Haydon et al. 2002). Understanding disease emergence requires consideration of the pathogen, animal hosts that are naturally infected by the pathogen and the ecological interactions which facilitate pathogen perpetuation in nature (Childs et al. 2007). The One Health concept recognizes that human, domestic animal, and wildlife health are interconnected and should be considered within an ecosystem context (Kaplan et al. 2009), while promoting collaboration between microbiologists, ecologists, epidemiologists, physicians, veterinarians, and modelers in the development of conceptual and mathematical system models. Models can guide appropriate disease surveillance, prevention, and control strategies (Fooks 2007; Zinsstag et al. 2009, 2011). Communication between these traditionally independent disciplines relies on a mutual conceptual understanding of disease surveillance methods and precise interpretation of the data generated. Subsequent data use in predictive models must recognize the strengths and limitations of the techniques utilized (Table 1). This paper presents concepts and examples that may appear obvious to immunologists and microbiologists, yet may be unknown, or overlooked by, ecologists, modelers, and policy makers.

Table 1 Common Misinterpretations of the Meaning of Antibody Positive and Negative Animals in Wildlife Disease Investigations.

The measurement of antibodies in blood is a critical disease surveillance tool because antibodies are typically easier to detect and persist longer than the inciting infectious agents. Serological assays detect antibodies induced by infection or vaccination, and provide evidence of past exposure to a pathogen. Although ecologists, modelers and policy makers may receive little training in immunology or the technical aspects of measuring host immune response to infection, they often must rely on serological data for inference to pathogen force of infection and transmission rates, as well as to parameterize dynamic disease models. Here we review the role of antibody assays and the interpretation of results in wildlife disease investigations, for an audience with little training in immunology or laboratory diagnostics. We discuss common factors that lead to misinterpretation of serological data, which primarily result from a lack of understanding about host immune response to infection and variation in test sensitivity and specificity. We address issues relating to the interpretation of antibody prevalence data from wildlife, and provide recommendations to guide study design and inference using serologic data (Table 2).

Table 2 Recommendations for the Use of Serologic Testing for Inference to Wildlife Disease Monitoring or Surveillance.

Approaches to Studying Wildlife Infections

Incidence and prevalence are the most frequently used measures to describe the epidemiology of infection in natural populations. Incidence is the number of new infections in a population-at-risk over time. Prevalence can be described as point or period, with the former describing the proportion of infected animals in a population at any particular moment, and the latter describing the proportion of infected animals in a population over a designated period of time (e.g., season). Antibody prevalence (i.e., seroprevalence) describes the proportion of individuals within a population that demonstrate pathogen-specific antibodies in the serum. Longitudinal or cross-sectional sampling strategies gather data on incidence and prevalence to infer temporal or spatial infection dynamics in wildlife populations.

Longitudinal studies repeat sampling of individuals, social groups, or populations, to detect changes in antibody prevalence over time, and may be used to estimate infection incidence if the sample size is large enough to detect antibody seroconversion events in the population (Hazel et al. 2000). Re-sampling individual wild animals, however, is often logistically difficult, therefore where it is possible to determine age in a species, age-structured antibody prevalence data may be utilized to gain insight into pathogen transmission processes (Farrington et al. 2001). However, insights can be limited by available knowledge regarding individual serological outcomes to infection (Evans 1976), including the: probability that an infected individual will seroconvert; incubation period and case fatality rate of infected individuals; duration of the antibody response to infection; and relationship between antibody status and resistance to pathogen infection. Often, few data exist regarding these fundamental questions and models generated from antibody prevalence data should recognize such uncertainties.

Cross-sectional studies focus on the social group, population, or species and, in contrast to longitudinal studies, provide snapshots on current or past infection prevalence rather than incidence. Antibody prevalence is only equivalent to infection incidence when the duration of tested antibody is orders of magnitude shorter than life-span of the host (e.g., IgM responses). Cross-sectional studies can document evidence for circulation of a pathogen within a group, population, geographic area, or species; for example, during exploratory or outbreak investigations when the infection status of a population, or the natural host range of a pathogen, is unknown (Swanepoel et al. 2007; Lembo et al. 2011). A major limitation of single cross-sectional studies is that they do not provide information on infection dynamics. However, cross-sectional antibody prevalence data may still be useful for disease ecology studies, and in some cases more useful than infection prevalence data (Heisey et al. 2006). For example, antibodies typically persist longer than antigen, and hence are more likely to be detected within a population ‘snapshot’. Repeated cross-sectional surveys that incorporate age-structured sampling may permit inference into temporal infection dynamics of wildlife (Plowright et al. 2008; Hayman et al. 2012). Cross-sectional surveys can also be used to evaluate spillover risk from wildlife populations. For example, cross-sectional surveys of antibodies to Brucella abortus in elk or to pseudorabies virus in wild swine inform managers where spillover to livestock is most likely to occur, and hence where to target management (Cross et al. 2007; Pannwitz et al. 2011). Serology has also been used to evaluate risk of spillover from domestic animals to wildlife, as with canine distemper virus transmission from domestic dogs to Serengeti carnivores (Alexander and Appel 1994; Cleaveland et al. 2000).

Cross-sectional antibody data are important in planning and evaluating wildlife disease management strategies. For example, vaccination against rabies virus (RABV) is undertaken annually in North America and Europe through the use of recombinant or modified live virus vaccines, enclosed in a bait for oral consumption by target wildlife (Rupprecht et al. 2008). Cross-sectional surveys are used to determine the pre-intervention spatial distribution of immunity so that vaccine baits can be optimally distributed (Vos 2003), and post-vaccination herd immunity for inference to bait uptake and infection resistance (Sidwa et al. 2005). RABV vaccination and modeling of immunity were management strategies also used to prevent the extinction of the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simiensis) (Haydon et al. 2006; Knobel et al. 2008). Another example involves management of bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) spillover to cattle through Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination of a wildlife reservoir, the European badger (Meles meles), in Great Britain (Chambers et al. 2011). Discrimination of infected versus vaccinated badgers was possible in this study (Greenwald et al. 2003), though it is typically not possible with antibody prevalence data.

A valuable step in designing ecological wildlife disease investigation involves the development of a conceptual, and ideally quantitative and predictive epidemiological model of the system. Early communication and collaborative model development ensure that appropriate data will be collected to inform a predictive model of the system (Restif et al. 2012) (Table 2). Traditional epidemiological models identify the basic compartments which formally define cohorts of susceptible, exposed, infected and (perhaps) recovered or immune individuals (i.e., SEIR), and the interactions among these cohorts which facilitate the invasion and maintenance of a pathogen in animal or plant populations (Anderson and May 1979, 1986). To parameterize these models, knowledge of the actual infection status of animals, and how this changes over time, is required. Acquiring these data could involve the lethal sampling of large numbers of animals, particularly if infection incidence is low. As this usually is neither feasible nor ethical, antibody data are used as a proxy for prevalence of infection.

Serological data may be more useful than infection prevalence data in determining the force of infection—the rate at which susceptible individuals become infected and the foundation for estimating transmission rates (Heisey et al. 2006). If antibody loss is slow and disease-induced mortality is well understood (Heisey et al. 2006, 2010), serology as an indicator of past infection may be more easily interpreted than prevalence data. For example, a low prevalence could be generated by a high force of infection and fast recovery rate, or a low force of infection and low recovery rate—problems avoided with serology if titers are long-lived.

Factors associated with the infection process, such as pathogen dose, variant and route of inoculation, can all impact the induction of a host antibody response to infection. While detection of antigen-specific antibodies usually indicates prior exposure to a pathogen, negative test results do not necessarily rule out prior exposure (Turmelle et al. 2010b). Antibody-positive animals are not necessarily infected animals, as one study demonstrated during a survey for Puumala virus in wild bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) (Alexeyev et al. 1998). It is often assumed that the immune class (R) of animals in SEIR models is equivalent to seropositive animals, when in fact antibodies may not be a reliable indicator of infection resistance (Raberg et al. 2009). In addition, variation in the sensitivity of antibody detection methods may exist (Cleaveland et al. 1999; Chambers et al. 2002; Troyer et al. 2005), with apparent trade-offs between sensitivity (ability to identify positive results and avoid false negatives) and specificity (ability to identify negative results and avoid false positives) for any assay. However, application of novel modeling methodologies, such as site-occupancy models, may tolerate imperfect detection probabilities based on serosurveys and other diagnostic techniques (Lachish et al. 2012).

Detecting Infections in Wildlife

The objective of disease surveillance systems is to track the incidence and prevalence of a specific pathogen infection in populations of interest. Several diagnostic techniques can obtain such data, each having its own strengths and limitations (OIE 2010). Pathogen isolation (e.g., using cell culture or animal models) permits identification and characterization of the disease agent, and enables animal infection experiments which are necessary to fulfill Koch’s postulates (Evans 1976) and characterize host pathogenesis. Pathogen isolation also permits a greater epidemiological understanding of the circulating pathogen diversity within and among reservoir and incidental hosts (Streicker et al. 2010). However, pathogen isolation from wildlife can be challenging even under ideal laboratory conditions. Infection burdens may be low, as observed with henipavirus infections in bats (Middleton et al. 2007; Halpin et al. 2011), or the pathogen may be sequestered in organs, thereby requiring lethal sampling, as with brucellosis in bison (Bison bison) and elk (Cervus elaphus) (Baldwin and Roop 2002) or classical swine fever in wild swine (Sus scrofa) (Kaden et al. 2006). Some infections may be latent, i.e., dormant in the body but with potential for reactivation, as has been observed with pseudorabies in wild swine (Wittmann and Rziha 1989). Often, animal infectious periods are short, as seen with RABV and canine distemper virus (Deem et al. 2000; Hampson et al. 2009), with few animals infected at any given time, thereby requiring very large sample sizes to detect infection. Finally, the handling and isolation of some pathogens requires high containment facilities only found in specialist laboratories. These factors might make obtaining isolates from wildlife impractical in many cases.

Direct pathogen detection tests, other than isolation, such as antigen-detection assays and molecular diagnostic tools (e.g., the polymerase chain reaction—PCR), can be used to detect evidence of active or latent infection. These methods share many of the limitations of pathogen isolation: unless a pathogen is circulating in blood, excreted in urine or feces, or colonizing an accessible mucosal surface or superficial lymph node, lethal sampling of wildlife will be required. Despite this, detection of host pathogen excretion via accessible pathways (e.g., blood or mucosal surfaces) can provide meaningful insights for parameterizing transmission probabilities and rates, although several studies also recognized that pathogen excretion may be intermittent among infected animals (Baer and Bales 1967; Chambers et al. 2002; Middleton et al. 2007), potentially limiting inference from cross-sectional snapshots. However, sample integrity is a key factor for field studies and maximizing the probability of successful pathogen isolation or detection often requires cold-chain or laboratory capacity that is difficult in a field setting, especially in remote geographic areas.

Given some limitations of pathogen isolation and antigen detection methods, antibody prevalence data are often used to elucidate infection dynamics in animal populations. The presence of specific antibody, however, only demonstrates past exposure to an antigen, while typically providing no information about the timing, intensity or frequency of infection. At a population level, antibody prevalence data provide information about the cumulative exposure history of the population, but not necessarily infection status. Antibody prevalence does not change quickly in response to changes in infection incidence, particularly when antibodies persist for long periods and host population turnover is slow. Some pathogens have evolved strategies to circumvent detection by the host immune system (e.g., lyssaviruses and herpesviruses) (Aleman et al. 2001; Faber et al. 2002; Wang et al. 2005), thus complicating the reliance on serological techniques to track infection dynamics. Notable testing limitations with serological techniques include cross-reactivity, poor accuracy, and undefined or non-standardized cut-off values to interpret an antibody-positive result. Because presence of antibody may not confer infection resistance, it is critical to explore the significance of an antibody-positive status in the context of a controlled infection process, using in vitro and in vivo models. However, with careful study design and interpretation (Table 2), antibody prevalence can be an invaluable tool for understanding the ecology of disease dynamics, even in poorly-understood systems such as wildlife populations.

Optimal Test Selection and Interpretation

The two main classes of antibody targeted in serological testing are IgM and IgG, where IgM is secreted first in response to pathogen infection yet is usually short-lived, whereas IgG is secreted later and persists longer in the circulation. Serological assays typically detect either binding (BAb) or neutralizing antibodies (NAb), and the type of test determines the type of antibodies that are detected and the subsequent inference that is possible from such data (Table 3).

Regardless of the assay selected, proper test validation, and stringent laboratory quality control standards are key to reliable collection and interpretation of antibody prevalence data (OIE 2010). Standard practice requires that appropriate positive and negative controls (ideally, relevant to the host population sampled) be employed in every test. Although laboratory strains of a pathogen may be employed for assay standardization, a field-derived strain of the pathogen may be more appropriate for certain systems or questions. Where pathogen diversity within a population, species or community is high, e.g. paramyxoviruses among bats (Drexler et al. 2012), it may be desirable to include multiple pathogen strains in serological tests (Kuzmin et al. 2011). The recent development of pathogen pseudotypes for serologic testing can facilitate testing of diverse pathogen repertoires using small sample volumes while minimizing biohazards (Temperton et al. 2005; Wright et al. 2008).

Cross-reactivity of antibodies to multiple pathogens has been important in vaccine development, but can also limit the interpretation of antibody prevalence data (Weyer et al. 2008; Horton et al. 2010; Mansfield et al. 2011). Cross reactivity can pose particular challenges in disease investigations of wildlife, as there is often no prior characterization of circulating pathogen diversity or cross-reactivity within and among populations. For example, antisera raised against one flavivirus can cross-react with other flaviviruses (Mansfield et al. 2011), but cross-reactivity within and between flavivirus serocomplexes has been inconsistent (Calisher et al. 1989a). One consequence of flavivirus cross-reactivity is reduced specificity in serological assays (Hirota et al. 2010), which led to the early misdiagnosis of the North American West Nile Virus epidemic as St. Louis Encephalitis in New York City (Lanciotti et al. 1999; WHO 1999). However, the idea of cross-reactivity limiting the specificity of serological assays extends to a variety of systems, as demonstrated among rhabdoviruses (Calisher et al. 1989b).

Evaluation of test repeatability and robustness is necessary for sound interpretation of serological test results, particularly for longitudinal studies. Inter-laboratory variation is a well-recognized issue for all pathogen testing, but some assays, particularly virus neutralization tests (VNTs), are prone to variation even within the same laboratory. This is because they are biologically dynamic tests, relying on consistent replication of live virus populations in cell culture. The NAb titer of a single control serum tested against a standard laboratory strain of RABV in a closely controlled test can vary by more than two-fold (Figure 1). The precise quantity of virus used in neutralization assays affects estimated antibody titers. To counter this, acceptable standards of variation must be developed with regard to positive and negative controls, with any test results that do not fall within strict and pre-determined values being discarded. Although frequently not performed, longitudinal samples from individuals should be tested in the same assay at the same time, rather than in consecutive assays.

Figure 1
figure1

The correlation between results obtained from testing one control serum against one virus in multiple assays (n = 3167) in a rabies virus neutralization test using a single challenge virus standard (CVS). A linear regression model (solid line, R 2 = 0.16, P < <0.01) shows a 0.18 log2 reduction in serum titer for every twofold increase in virus titer and substantial variance in serum titer (standard deviation 0.42 log2). Virus titer is measured for each test, and results are discarded if the infectious dose is outside pre-determined limits (4.32–8.23 log2 median tissue culture infective dose–TCID50).

Within and between assay—and between laboratory—variation has been carefully evaluated for serological assays in influenza, particularly in humans in relation to vaccination (Wood et al. 1994), but also for horses (Mumford 2000). When considering the two most commonly used and well-controlled serological assays available for human influenza, hemagglutination inhibition (HI) and single radial hemolysis (SRH) assays, Wood et al (1994) reported that although each technique was reproducible within laboratories, variability between laboratories was higher for HI (maximum variability 32-fold; geometric coefficient of variation, GCV, 112%) than for SRH (maximum variability 3.8-fold; GCV 57%). The potential for such variation is usually overlooked when interpreting serological data.

To determine population antibody prevalence and to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a test, values obtained with a given test sample are evaluated against a reference cut-off value, meaning that all values below the cut-off are considered antibody-negative and all values above the cut-off value are considered antibody-positive. Standard cut-off values are often not known, usually due to a lack of well-characterized reference samples from target wildlife populations. Modification of a cut-off value has a direct impact on the sensitivity and specificity of the serological assay—and hence estimated antibody prevalence. For this reason, it can be difficult to compare serological results across studies, particularly as cut-off values usually are not standardized between laboratories and because many publications report only proportional antibody prevalence rather than individual titers. Comparisons are more difficult when pathogen strains or antigens used in a serological test vary across studies. Estimating antibody prevalence is most problematic with regards to the evaluation of low-titer individuals and their proportion within a population, such that reporting results as quantitative values may be more informative (Peel et al. 2012).

An example of how different criteria can affect interpretation of results involves the testing of 166 European bats for European bat lyssavirus (EBLV) NAb. Using the same cut-off threshold for a positive response (i.e., a 1:27 dilution), but a different level of virus neutralization (100% versus 50% reduction in fluorescing fields) can lead to variation in NAb prevalence estimates, ranging from 0.6% (CI 0.0-3.3) under more stringent criteria (i.e., 100% neutralization) to 4.8% (CI 2.1-9.3) under less stringent criteria (i.e., 50% neutralization) (AVHLA, unpublished data). Similarly, in a study of RABV NAb among sera collected over two years from 1,058 bats in the United States, an increase in test cut-off threshold from 0.06 international units per ml (IU/ml) to 0.1 IU/ml led to a reduction in RABV NAb seroprevalence from 38% (CI 35-41) to 28% (CI 25-31) (CDC, unpublished data). While variation in testing conditions can be accounted for by using reference positive control sera of known potency, the above examples highlight the difficulties in running longitudinal samples across different years or operators and demonstrate that different estimates of antibody prevalence from the same samples are possible. Instances where positive control sera are not included or reported are especially troubling, and make it difficult to control for test variation across operators or laboratories. Efforts must be made to standardize methods and result interpretation and reporting across laboratories.

Serological Interpretation in Wildlife Populations

In most systems, the duration of detectable antibody following infection is not known. While positive reactions for one antibody class (i.e., IgM) can be taken as evidence of active or recent infection, it is not possible to infer timing of infection from more commonly detected antibody classes (e.g., IgG). Repeated infection may be necessary to induce an antibody response in some animals (Turmelle et al. 2010b), and antibodies may persist from weeks to years, depending on the host–pathogen system and individual variation (Aubert 1992). Importantly, the loss of detectable circulating antibody does not necessarily represent a loss of immunity with respect to subsequent pathogen infection (e.g., memory lymphocytes). Rather, the animal may be primed immunologically to respond to re-infection, or mechanisms such as cell-mediated immunity may also play a significant role in infection resistance. It is typically impossible to know the exposure histories of wild free-ranging animals, particularly during cross sectional studies, and extremely challenging to differentiate seronegative animals that were previously seropositive from animals that have never encountered the pathogen under study (i.e., are truly naïve) (Table 1).

With age-structured sampling of mammalian wildlife, maternally-derived antibody (MDAb) may be identified in nursing or recently weaned young, but the function of MDAb in most wildlife host-pathogen systems has not been well-characterized (Boulinier and Staszewski 2008). The presence of MDAb can also interfere with individual immune responses and can compromise the response to vaccination in offspring (Xiang and Ertl 1992; Muller et al. 2001; Siegrist 2003). Evaluating the proportion of antibody-positive dams is necessary for interpreting proportional antibody prevalence among offspring in a social group or population, as the antibody titer of the dam may impact the probability of transfer to, and the level of MDAb in, respective offspring (Muller et al. 2002; Boulinier and Staszewski 2008; Kallio et al. 2010). MDAb often wane in juveniles around the time of weaning (Muller et al. 2002; Plowright et al. 2008), yet may be detected for a much longer period of time using antibody-binding compared to VNT assays (Muller et al. 2005). The effects of MDAb may vary across and within host-pathogen systems, and few have been adequately studied. Susceptibility to infection is presumed to be high among offspring nursing from seronegative dams and, where breeding is seasonal, the infection of offspring that are naïve or have waning MDAb may modulate seasonal pulses of infection or disease outbreaks (Fouchet et al. 2007; Kallio et al. 2010; George et al. 2011; Plowright et al. 2011). Age-structured serological studies have great potential for providing highly informative insights for disease modeling (Heisey et al. 2006) and disease management strategies (Farrington et al. 2001), although timing of sampling intervals and proper cohort representation are key considerations.

Despite substantial variation in the longevity of wildlife, the immune response to repeated pathogen infection in long-lived hosts has received little attention. For example, humoral immune responses may be less important following repeated infection of bats with RABV (Turmelle et al. 2010b), perhaps due to an increasing role of cell-mediated defenses (Moore et al. 2006; Horowitz et al. 2010), potentially complicating a reliance on antibody prevalence data for dynamic disease models in some host-pathogen systems. Certainly, expanding immunological surveillance among wildlife to include different measures of immunity holds exciting promise for modeling the perpetuation and emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife (Graham et al. 2007).

Beyond initial decisions about which specific serological test will be employed for a study, sample size and sampling strategy must be carefully considered. Strategies might include capture of free-ranging animals or capture within a roost, shelter, nest or burrow. Capture of refuging animals may bias collection of sick or moribund animals which may be more likely to be infected and seropositive. Comparison of studies investigating RABV NAb seroprevalence in populations of bats suggests different NAb seroprevalence in bats captured while roosting versus those in flight (Constantine et al. 1968; Steece and Altenbach 1989; Turmelle et al. 2010a). Furthermore, individual immunological response to infection among wildlife populations may vary due to host or environmental factors (Bouma et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2010; Hawley and Altizer 2011). All studies must consider that age and social structures of populations can vary in space and time, potentially leading to variation in the types of individuals sampled and estimates of antibody prevalence.

Conclusions

As new diagnostic techniques develop in the study of wildlife disease, the challenges of interpretation of results from all systems are increasing. When properly employed, serological data can be very powerful for inference and modeling of infectious disease dynamics in wildlife, but the limitations must also be acknowledged. Development of conceptual and mathematical models prior to field sampling, greater consideration of pathogenesis and age structure in the population infection process, investment in longitudinal studies whenever possible and standardized sample collection, storage and testing protocols can ensure that reliable and meaningful data are obtained for modeling applications to effectively characterize, and evaluate intervention strategies for, wildlife disease systems.

References

  1. Aleman N, Quiroga MI, Lopez-Pena M, Vazquez S, Guerrero FH, and Nieto JM (2001). Induction and inhibition of apoptosis by pseudorabies virus in the trigeminal ganglion during acute infection of swine. Journal of Virology 75:469-479.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander KA, and Appel MJ (1994). African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) endangered by a canine distemper epizootic among domestic dogs near the Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30:481-485.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexeyev OA, Ahlm C, Elgh F, Aava B, Palo T, Settergren B, et al. (1998). A minority of seropositive wild bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) show evidence of current Puumala virus infection. Epidemiology and Infection 121:419-425.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson RM, and May RM (1979). Population biology of infectious diseases: Part I. Nature 280:361-367.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson RM, and May RM (1986). The invasion, persistence and spread of infectious diseases within animal and plant communities. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 314:533-570.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Aubert MF (1992). Practical significance of rabies antibodies in cats and dogs. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 11:735-760.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baer GM, and Bales GL (1967). Experimental rabies infection in the Mexican freetail bat. Journal of Infectious Diseases 117:82-90.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Baldwin CL, and Roop RM (2002). Brucella infections and immunity. Pages 255-279 in L. J. Paradise, H. Friedman, and M. Bendinelli, editors. Opportunistic Intracellular Bacteria and Immunity Kluwer Academic Press, New York

  9. Boulinier T, and Staszewski V (2008). Maternal transfer of antibodies: raising immuno-ecology issues. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:282-288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bouma HR, Carey HV, and Kroese FG (2010). Hibernation: the immune system at rest? Journal of Leukocyte Biology 88:619-624.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Calisher CH, Karabatsos N, Dalrymple JM, Shope RE, Porterfield JS, Westaway EG, et al. (1989a). Antigenic relationships between flaviviruses as determined by cross-neutralization tests with polyclonal antisera. Journal of General Virology 70:37-43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Calisher CH, Karabatsos N, Zeller H, Digoutte JP, Tesh RB, Shope RE, et al. (1989b). Antigenic relationships among rhabdoviruses from vertebrates and hematophagous arthropods. Intervirology 30:241-257.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chambers MA, Pressling WA, Cheeseman CL, Clifton-Hadley RS, and Hewinson RG (2002). Value of existing serological tests for identifying badgers that shed Mycobacterium bovis. Veterinary Microbiology 86:183-189.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chambers MA, Rogers F, Delahay RJ, Lesellier S, Ashford R, Dalley D, et al. (2011). Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccination reduces the severity and progression of tuberculosis in badgers. Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological sciences 278:1913-1920.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Childs JE, Richt JA, and Mackenzie JS (2007). Conceptualizing and partitioning the emergence process of zoonotic viruses from wildlife to humans. Current Topics in Microbiology & Immunology 315:1-31.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cleaveland S, Appel MGJ, Chalmers WSK, Chillingworth C, Kaare M, and Dye C (2000). Serological and demographic evidence for domestic dogs as a source of canine distemper virus infection for Serengeti wildlife. Veterinary Microbiology 72:217-227.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cleaveland S, Barrat J, Barrat MJ, Selve M, Kaare M, and Esterhuysen J (1999). A rabies serosurvey of domestic dogs in rural Tanzania: results of a rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) and a liquid-phase blocking ELISA used in parallel. Epidemiology and Infection 123:157-164.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Constantine DG, Tierkel ES, Kleckner MD, and Hawkins DM (1968). Rabies in New Mexico cavern bats. Public Health Reports 83:303-316.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cross PC, Edwards WH, Scurlock BM, Maichak EJ, and Rogerson JD (2007). Effects of management and climate on elk brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ecological Applications 17:957-964.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Daszak P, Cunningham AA, and Hyatt AD (2000). Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife– threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287:443-449.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Deem SL, Spelman LH, Yates RA, and Montali RJ (2000). Canine distemper in terrestrial carnivores: a review. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 31:441-451.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Drexler JF, Corman VM, Muller MA, Maganga GD, Vallo P, Binger T, et al. (2012). Bats host major mammalian paramyxoviruses. Nat Commun 3:796.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans AS (1976). Causation and disease: the Henle-Koch postulates revisited. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 49:175-195.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Faber M, Pulmanausahakul R, Hodawadekar SS, Spitsin S, McGettigan JP, Schnell MJ, et al. (2002). Overexpression of the rabies virus glycoprotein results in enhancement of apoptosis and antiviral immune response. Journal of Virology 76:3374–3381.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Farrington CP, Kanaan MN, and Gay NJ (2001). Estimation of the basic reproduction number for infectious diseases from age-stratified serological survey data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C-Applied Statistics 50:251-283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fooks AR (2007). Rabies - the need for a ‘one medicine’ approach. The Veterinary Record 161:289-290.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fouchet D, Marchandeau S, Bahi-Jaber N, and Pontier D (2007). The role of maternal antibodies in the emergence of severe disease as a result of fragmentation. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4:479-489.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. George DB, Webb CT, Farnsworth ML, O’Shea TJ, Bowen RA, Smith DL, et al. (2011). Host and viral ecology determine bat rabies seasonality and maintenance. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America 108:10208-10213.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Graham AL, Cattadori IM, Lloyd-Smith JO, Ferrari MJ, and Bjornstad ON (2007). Transmission consequences of coinfection: cytokines writ large? Trends Parasitol 23:284-291.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Graham AL, Hayward AD, Watt KA, Pilkington JG, Pemberton JM, and Nussey DH (2010). Fitness correlates of heritable variation in antibody responsiveness in a wild mammal. Science 330:662-665.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Greenwald R, Esfandiari J, Lesellier S, Houghton R, Pollock J, Aagaard C, et al. (2003). Improved serodetection of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers (Meles meles) using multiantigen test formats. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease 46:197-203.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Halpin K, Hyatt AD, Fogarty R, Middleton D, Bingham J, Epstein JH, et al. (2011). Pteropid bats are confirmed as the reservoir hosts of henipaviruses: a comprehensive experimental study of virus transmission. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 85:946-951.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hampson K, Dushoff J, Cleaveland S, Haydon DT, Kaare M, Packer C, et al. (2009). Transmission dynamics and prospects for the elimination of canine rabies. PLoS Biology 7:e53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hawley DM, and Altizer SM (2011). Disease ecology meets ecological immunology: understanding the links between organismal immunity and infection dynamics in natural populations. Functional Ecology 25:48-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haydon DT, Cleaveland S, Taylor LH, and Laurenson MK (2002). Identifying reservoirs of infection: A conceptual and practical challenge. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8:1468-1473.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Haydon DT, Randall DA, Matthews L, Knobel DL, Tallents LA, Gravenor MB, et al. (2006). Low-coverage vaccination strategies for the conservation of endangered species. Nature 443:692-695.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hayman DT, Fooks AR, Rowcliffe JM, McCrea R, Restif O, Baker KS, et al. (2012) Endemic Lagos bat virus infection in Eidolon helvum. Epidemiology and Infection 140(12):2163–2171. doi:10.1017/S0950268812000167

  38. Hazel SM, Bennett M, Chantrey J, Bown K, Cavanagh R, Jones TR, et al. (2000). A longitudinal study of an endemic disease in its wildlife reservoir: cowpox and wild rodents. Epidemiology and Infection 124:551-562.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Heisey DM, Joly DO, and Messier F (2006). The fitting of general force-of-infection models to wildlife disease prevalence data. Ecology 87:2356-2365.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Heisey DM, Osnas EE, Cross PC, Joly DO, Langenberg JA, and Miller MW (2010). Linking process to pattern: estimating spatiotemporal dynamics of a wildlife epidemic from cross-sectional data. Ecological Monographs 80:221-240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hirota J, Nishi H, Matsuda H, Tsunemitsu H, and Shimiz S (2010). Cross-reactivity of Japanese encephalitis virus-vaccinated horse sera in serodiagnosis of West Nile virus. The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 72:369-372.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Horowitz A, Behrens RH, Okell L, Fooks AR, and Riley EM (2010). NK cells as effectors of acquired immune responses: effector CD4 + T cell-dependent activation of NK cells following vaccination. Journal of Immunology 185:2808-2818.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Horton DL, McElhinney LM, Marston DA, Wood JL, Russell CA, Lewis N, et al. (2010). Quantifying antigenic relationships among the lyssaviruses. Journal of Virology 84:11841-11848.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaden V, Kramer M, Kern B, Hlinak A, Mewes L, Hanel A, et al. (2006). Diagnostic procedures after completion of oral immunisation against classical swine fever in wild boar. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 25:989-997.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kallio ER, Begon M, Henttonen H, Koskela E, Mappes T, Vaheri A, et al. (2010). Hantavirus infections in fluctuating host populations: the role of maternal antibodies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 277:3783-3791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaplan B, Kahn LH, and Monath TP (2009). ‘One health - one medicine’: linking human, animal and environmental health. Veterinaria Italiana 45:1-195.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Knobel DL, Fooks AR, Brookes SM, Randall DA, Williams SD, Argaw K, et al. (2008). Trapping and vaccination of endangered Ethiopian wolves to control an outbreak of rabies. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:109-116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kuzmin IV, Franka R, and Rupprecht CE (2008). Experimental infection of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) with West Caucasian bat virus (WCBV). Developments in Biologicals 131:327-337.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Kuzmin IV, Turmelle AS, Agwanda B, Markotter W, Niezgoda M, Breiman RF, et al. (2011). Commerson’s leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros commersoni) is the likely reservoir of Shimoni bat virus. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 11:1465-1470.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lachish S, Gopalaswamy AM, Knowles SCL, and Sheldon BC (2012). Site-occupancy modelling as a novel framework for assessing test sensitivity and estimating wildlife disease prevalence from imperfect diagnostic tests. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:339-348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lanciotti RS, Roehrig JT, Deubel V, Smith J, Parker M, Steele K, et al. (1999). Origin of the West Nile Virus Responsible for an Outbreak of Encephalitis in the Northeastern United States. Science 286:2333-2337.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lembo T, Hampson K, Auty H, Beesley CA, Bessell P, Packer C, et al. (2011). Serologic surveillance of anthrax in the Serengeti ecosystem, Tanzania, 1996-2009. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17:387-394.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mansfield KL, Horton DL, Johnson N, Li L, Barrett AD, Smith DJ, et al. (2011). Flavivirus-induced antibody cross-reactivity. Journal of General Virology 92:2821-2829.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Middleton DJ, Morrissy CJ, van der Heide BM, Russell GM, Braun MA, Westbury HA, et al. (2007). Experimental Nipah virus infection in pteropid bats (Pteropus poliocephalus). Journal of Comparative Pathology 136:266-272.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Moore SM, Wilkerson MJ, Davis RD, Wyatt CR, and Briggs DJ (2006). Detection of cellular immunity to rabies antigens in human vaccinees. Journal of Clinical Immunology 26:533-545.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Muller T, Selhorst T, Schuster P, Vos A, Wenzel U, and Neubert A (2002). Kinetics of maternal immunity against rabies in fox cubs (Vulpes vulpes). BMC Infect Dis 2:10.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Muller T, Teuffert J, Staubach C, Selhorst T, and Depner KR (2005). Long-term studies on maternal immunity for Aujeszky’s disease and classical swine fever in wild boar piglets. Journal of Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious diseases and veterinary public health 52:432-436.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Muller TF, Schuster P, Vos AC, Selhorst T, Wenzel UD, and Neubert AM (2001). Effect of maternal immunity on the immune response to oral vaccination against rabies in young foxes. American Journal of Veterinary Research 62:1154-1158.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Mumford J (2000). Collaborative study for the establishment of three European Pharmacopoeia biological reference preparations for equine influenza horse antiserum. PHARMEUROPA Special Issue, Bio 2000-1, 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  60. OIE (2010) Principles and methods of validation of diagnostic assays for infectious diseases, pp 1–18 in OIE Terrestrial Manual.

  61. Pannwitz G, Freuling C, Denzin N, Schaarschmidt U, Nieper H, Hlinak A, et al. (2011) A long-term serological survey on Aujeszky's disease virus infections in wild boar in East Germany. Epidemiology and Infection 140(2):348-358. doi:10.1017/S0950268811000033

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Peel AJ, Baker KS, Crameri G, Barr JA, Hayman DTS, Wright E, et al. (2012). Henipavirus neutralising antibodies in an isolated island population of African fruit bats. PloS ONE 7:e30346.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Plowright RK, Field HE, Smith C, Divljan A, Palmer C, Tabor G, et al. (2008). Reproduction and nutritional stress are risk factors for Hendra virus infection in little red flying foxes (Pteropus scapulatus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 275:861-869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Plowright RK, Foley P, Field HE, Dobson AP, Foley JE, Eby P, et al. (2011). Urban habituation, ecological connectivity and epidemic dampening: the emergence of Hendra virus from flying foxes (Pteropus spp.). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 278:3703-3712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Raberg L, Graham AL, and Read AF (2009). Decomposing health: tolerance and resistance to parasites in animals. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 364:37-49.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Restif O, Hayman DTS, Pulliam J, Plowright R, George D, Luis A, et al. (2012) Model-guided fieldwork: practical guidelines for multidisciplinary research on wildlife ecological and epidemiological dynamics. Ecology Letters 15(10):1083-1094. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01836.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Robardet E, Picard-Meyer E, Andrieu S, Servat A, and Cliquet F (2011). International interlaboratory trials on rabies diagnosis: an overview of results and variation in reference diagnosis techniques (fluorescent antibody test, rabies tissue culture infection test, mouse inoculation test) and molecular biology techniques. Journal of Virological Methods 177:15-25.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Rupprecht CE, Barrett J, Briggs D, Cliquet F, Fooks AR, Lumlertdacha B, et al. (2008). Can rabies be eradicated? Developments in Biologicals 131:95-121.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Shankar V, Bowen RA, Davis AD, Rupprecht CE, and O’Shea T J (2004). Rabies in a captive colony of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 40:403-413.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sidwa TJ, Wilson PJ, Moore GM, Oertli EH, Hicks BN, Rohde RE, et al. (2005). Evaluation of oral rabies vaccination programs for control of rabies epizootics in coyotes and gray foxes: 1995-2003. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227:785-792.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Siegrist CA (2003). Mechanisms by which maternal antibodies influence infant vaccine responses: review of hypotheses and definition of main determinants. Vaccine 21:3406-3412.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Steece R, and Altenbach JS (1989). Prevalence of rabies specific antibodies in the Mexican free-tailed bat at Lava Cave, New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 25:490-496.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Streicker DG, Turmelle AS, Vonhof MJ, Kuzmin IV, McCracken GF, and Rupprecht CE (2010). Host phylogeny constrains cross-species emergence and establishment of rabies virus in bats. Science 329:676-679.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Swanepoel R, Smit SB, Rollin PE, Formenty P, Leman PA, Kemp A, et al. (2007). Studies of reservoir hosts for Marburg virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13:1847-1851.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Taylor LH, Latham SM, and Woolhouse MEJ (2001). Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 356:983-989.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Temperton NJ, Chan PK, Simmons G, Zambon MC, Tedder RS, Takeuchi Y, et al. (2005). Longitudinally profiling neutralizing antibody response to SARS coronavirus with pseudotypes. Emerging Infectious Diseases 11:411-416.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Troyer JL, Pecon-Slattery J, Roelke ME, Johnson W, VandeWoude S, Vazquez-Salat N, et al. (2005). Seroprevalence and genomic divergence of circulating strains of feline immunodeficiency virus among Felidae and Hyaenidae species. Journal of Virology 79:8282-8294.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Turmelle AS, Allen LC, Jackson FR, Kunz TH, Rupprecht C, and McCracken GF (2010a). Ecology of rabies virus exposure in colonies of Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) at natural and man-made roosts in Texas. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 10:165-175.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Turmelle AS, Jackson FR, Green D, McCracken GF, and Rupprecht CE (2010b). Host immunity to repeated rabies virus infection in big brown bats. Journal of General Virology 91:2360–2366.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Vos A (2003). Oral vaccination against rabies and the behavioural ecology of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Journal of Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious diseases and veterinary public health 50:477-483.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Wang ZW, Sarmento L, Wang Y, Li XQ, Dhingra V, Tseggai T, et al. (2005). Attenuated rabies virus activates, while pathogenic rabies virus evades, the host innate immune responses in the central nervous system. Journal of Virology 79:12554–12565.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Weyer J, Kuzmin IV, Rupprecht CE, and Nel LH (2008). Cross-protective and cross-reactive immune responses to recombinant vaccinia viruses expressing full-length lyssavirus glycoprotein genes. Epidemiology and Infection 136:670-678.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. WHO (1999) 1999: St. Louis encephalitis in the United States of America. http://www.who.int/csr/don/1999_09_14a/en/index.html

  84. Wittmann G, and Rziha HG (1989). Aujeszky’s disease (pseudorabies) in pigs. Pages 230-325 in G. Wittmann, editor. Herpesvirus diseases of cattle, horses and pigs. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Wood JM, Gaines-Das RE, Taylor J, and Chakraverty P (1994). Comparison of influenza serological techniques by international collaborative study. Vaccine 12:167-174.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Woolhouse ME, Howey R, Gaunt E, Reilly L, Chase-Topping M, and Savill N (2008). Temporal trends in the discovery of human viruses. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 275:2111-2115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Wright E, Temperton NJ, Marston DA, McElhinney LM, Fooks AR, and Weiss RA (2008). Investigating antibody neutralization of lyssaviruses using lentiviral pseudotypes: a cross-species comparison. Journal of General Virology 89:2204-2213.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Xiang ZQ, and Ertl HC (1992). Transfer of maternal antibodies results in inhibition of specific immune responses in the offspring. Virus Research 24:297-314.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Bonfoh B, Fooks AR, Kasymbekov J, Waltner-Toews D, et al. (2009). Towards a ‘One Health’ research and application tool box. Veterinaria Italiana 45:121-133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Waltner-Toews D, and Tanner M (2011). From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Prev Vet Med 101:148-156.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the working group of Research and Policy for Infectious Disease Dynamics program of the Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security and the Rabies program at CDC-Atlanta, specifically Richard Franka and Michael Niezgoda, for insightful discussions of serologic testing and interpretation. AG was supported by an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) fellowship. DTSH acknowledges support from the David H. Smith Fellowship in Conservation Research and the Wellcome Trust. AAC was supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit award. ARF and DLH are supported by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) projects SV3500 and SV3034. JLNW was supported by the Alborada Trust. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy T. Gilbert.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Understanding Serological Assays.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gilbert, A.T., Fooks, A.R., Hayman, D.T.S. et al. Deciphering Serology to Understand the Ecology of Infectious Diseases in Wildlife. EcoHealth 10, 298–313 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-013-0856-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • antibody prevalence
  • epidemiological models
  • immunity
  • surveillance
  • wildlife disease