Prevalence of Lumpy Skin Disease and Associated Risk Factors in the Cattle of Barishal District in Bangladesh

Wahedul Karim Ansari1, Md. Yeasin Arafat1, Md. Kamruzzaman Akimul1, Md. Saifur Rahman1, Md. Jahirul Islam2, Mahamud Hasan2, Md. Ibrahim Mridha2, Md. Aminul Islam3 and Mohammad Enamul Hoque Kayesh1*

1Department of Microbiology and Public Health, Faculty of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Barishal-8210, Bangladesh; 2Faculty of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Barishal-8210, Bangladesh; 3Department of Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh.

Editor | Muhammad Abubakar, National Veterinary Laboratories, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Received | August 15, 2024; Accepted | September 18, 2024; Published | October 11, 2024

*Correspondence | Mohammad Enamul Hoque Kayesh, Department of Microbiology and Public Health, Faculty of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Barishal-8210, Bangladesh; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Ansari, W.K., M.Y. Arafat, M.K. Akimul, M.S. Rahman, M.J. Islam, M. Hasan, M.I. Mridha, M. A. Islam. and M.E.H. Kayesh. 2024. Prevalence of lumpy skin disease and associated risk factors in the cattle of barishal district in Bangladesh.: Research and Reviews, 10(2): 72-81.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.vsrr/2024/10.2.72.81

Keywords | Lumpy skin disease, Prevalence, associated, Risk factors, Cattle, Barishal

Copyright: 2024 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

Lumpy skin disease (LSD) is an economically important vector-borne transboundary emerging viral disease of cattle in Bangladesh (Kayesh et al., 2020). LSD is caused by lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV), belonging to the family Poxviridae and the genus Capripoxvirus (Sprygin et al., 2019; Tulman et al., 2001). LSDV is a double-stranded DNA virus, containing a genome of approximately 151 kb with a central coding region (CDR) of 156 putative genes. In addition, two identical inverted terminal repeat regions of about 2.4 kb lie at the both ends of the CDR (Tulman et al., 2001). Capripoxvirus contains three very closely related animal viruses such as sheeppox virus (SPPV), goatpox virus (GTPV), and LSDV, and these viruses cannot be separated serologically (Babiuk et al., 2008; Badhy et al., 2021).

LSD is mechanically transmitted by blood-feeding mosquitos, biting flies and ticks (Chihota et al., 2001; Sanz-Bernardo et al., 2021; Sohier et al., 2019; Tuppurainen et al., 2013). LSDV has a narrow host range limited to cattle (Bos indicus and Bos taurus) and buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) (Kar et al., 2022). However, Bos taurus is most susceptible compared to Bos indicus (Gupta et al., 2020). LSDV causes considerable economic loss in cattle and buffalo industry globally. Due to significant economic impact of LSD, it has been listed as a World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)-notifiable disease. Previously LSD was endemic only in African countries, however, recently it has spread to many Asian cattle producing countries (Khan et al., 2021). Lumpy skin disease was found to be disseminated in South East Asia from 2019 (Ratyotha et al., 2022). At the same period, this disease emerged in Bangladesh and eventually spread all over the country (Badhy et al., 2021). Poor managemental practices could act as a cofactor for disease occurrence (Biswas et al., 2020). In addition, coastal belt areas are continuously affected by global warming with rising sea levels, which may promote spreading vector-borne disease (Ramasamy and Surendran, 2011), and this phenomena influenced the current investigation of LSD prevalence in Barishal district, one of the coastal areas in Bangladesh. Moreover, only limited research has been investigated which also acted as a catalyst for this study.

Until now there is no antivirals for LSDV infection (Uddin et al., 2022). Although strict quarantine measures and vector control are essential for preventing the spread of the disease, however, vaccination remains the mainstay for preventing the spread of the infection in endemic and newly affected regions (Salauddin et al., 2024; Tuppurainen et al., 2021). Vaccination is crucial for maintaining the health of animals and the economic sustainability of cattle and buffalo farming against LSD threats (Tuppurainen et al., 2021). For controlling LSDV infection, homologous vaccines consisting of live attenuated LSDV can be used (Sprygin et al., 2020). Due to cross-protection within the Capripoxvirus genus, heterologous vaccines consisting of live attenuated SPPV or GTPV can also be used for controlling LSDV infection (Tuppurainen et al., 2021). However, the available vaccines differ in terms of quality, efficacy, safety, side effects, and even price (Tuppurainen et al., 2021). Also, there are the issues of poor characterization of viral vaccine strains and circulating wild strains in terms of host specificity, vaccination failures and safety concerns with capripox vaccinations (Sumana et al., 2020). Moreover, it has been observed that the continued administration of heterologous vaccinations since 2014 became unable to stop LSD outbreaks in Turkey, suggesting the success of the vaccine is inadequate, highlighting the necessity of new vaccine candidate for LSD control and prevention (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2020). The information on prevalence of LSD in particular area is essential for taking proper action against LSD. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence and risk factors of LSD in the cattle of Barishal district in Bangladesh. In addition, we also wanted to know the awareness of LSD vaccine use for preventing the LSDV infection.

Materials and Methods

Study area and study animals

A cross-sectional study was conducted in April, 2023 on randomly selected 315 cattle (one cattle from one household) in three different upazilas (Babuganj, Bakerganj and Barishal Sadar) of Barishal district, Bangladesh (Figure 1). From each upazila, a total of 105 cattle were randomly selected for investigation in the small households rearing not more than 3 cattle, and our focus was on the presence of nodular lesions on the skin. A semi-structured questionnaire was utilized to record the information of animals’ age, sex, breed, floor type (earthen floor, concrete floor, and slated floor), housing system (traditional or semi-intensive), vaccination history with LSD vaccine, use of

 

Table 1: Overall prevalence of LSD in the study area.

Study area	Animals examined	LSD positive animals	Percent prevalence (95% CI)
Babuganj, Barishal Sadar, and Bakerganj	315 (28.64 ± 4.52)	13 (1.18 ± 1.25)	4.13 (0.34-2.02)

 

CI: Confidence Interval

 

Table 2: Prevalence of LSD in different Upazillas in Barishal, Bangladesh.

Name of Upazilas	Animals examined	LSD positive animals	Prevalence % (95% CI)	p-value
Babuganj	105 (9.55 ± 1.51)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	0.95 (-0.11-0.29)	0.20
Barishal Sadar	105 (9.55 ± 1.51)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	3.81 (-0.09-0.82)
Bakerganj	105 (9.55 ± 1.51)	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	7.62 (-0.07-1.53)

 

CI: Confidence Interval.

 

antibiotics in case of LSD, etc. Moreover, biosecurity measures like use of mosquito curtains, repellants and source of water, awareness of LSD vaccine were also recorded by asking the owner and/or attendants of the animals.

Determination of LSD in cattle

LSD was diagnosed by physical examination of the animal for detecting the nodular lesions on the skin and by confirming fever, as described earlier (Kayesh et al., 2020). The guidelines from World Organization for Animal Health (source: https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2021/03/lumpy-skin-disease.pdf) were also followed for clinical investigation.

Data analysis

Data were entered into the excel spreadsheet. A single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post tests were used. P value less than 0.05 was considered as significant.

Results and Discussion

LSD prevalence and factors associated in the cattle of Barishal district

In this study, a total of 315 animals were examined in 03 upazilas (Babuganj, Barishal Sadar, and Bakerganj) of Barishal district. Out of 315 cattle, 13 cattle were found positive for LSD. The overall prevalence of LSD was 4.13% (Table 1).

The highest prevalence (7.62%) was observed in Bakerganj upazila and the lowest prevalence (0.95%) was observed in Babuganj upazila (Table 2).

Age, breed, sex, housing condition, curtain use, repellant use, water source, vaccination, vaccine awareness of farmers, antibiotic use did not show any significant association (p=>0.05) in LSD prevalence in the cattle of Babuganj upazila (Table 3). The use of curtain, repellent, and vaccine seemed to help in inhibiting LSDV infection in Babuganj upazila (Table 3). In Babuganj upazila, only 5.71% cattle was found to be vaccinated with LSD vaccine, where 49% of the cattle farmer was not aware of the LSD vaccine (Table 3).

Age, breed, sex, housing condition, curtain use, repellant use, water source, vaccination, vaccine awareness of farmers, antibiotic use did not show any significant association (p=>0.05) in LSD prevalence in the cattle of Barishal Sadar, Barishal (Table 4). However, the use of curtain was found to be effective in preventing LSD, but the use of repellant was not sufficient in inhibiting LSD, as about 4.35% animals showed LSD despite repellent use (Table 4). Out of 105 animals in Barishal Sadar, only 3 animals were found to be vaccinated with LSD vaccine, and over 70% of the cattle farmer was not aware of the LSD vaccine (Table 4).

Age, breed, sex, curtain use, repellant use, water source, vaccination, vaccine awareness of farmers, antibiotic use did not show any significant association (p=>0.05) in LSD prevalence in the cattle of Bakerganj upazila, Barishal (Table 5). A significant effect among different housing conditions on LSD was observed in Bakerganj upazila (p=< 0.05) (Table 5). Antibiotic use did not prevent LSD cases in all three upazilas (Tables 3,4, and 5). Fever and nodular lesions were found in all LSD positive cattle (Tables 3,4, and 5). We also analyzed post-test effect whether any effect between two housing conditions on LSD prevalence in the cattle of Bakerganj upazila, Barishal, and we observed no significant association of housing conditions on LSD prevalence (Table 6).

 

Table 3: Prevalence of LSD in Babuganj, Barishal.

Variables		Samples examined (Mean ± SD)	Positive samples Mean ± SD)	Percent prevalence (95% CI)	p-value
Age	< 1 year	42 (3.82 ± 1.94)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)	0.40
	1-3 years	35 (3.18 ± 1.54)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
	3-7 years	22 (2.00 ± 1.26)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
	7-12 years	06 (0.55 ± 0.69)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	16.67 (-0.11-0.29)
Breed and sex	Local male	11 (1.00 ± 0.89)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)	0.40
	Local female	32 (2.91 ± 1.64)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	3.13 (-0.11-0.29)
	Cross male	29 (2.64 ± 1.50)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
	Cross female	33 (3.00 ± 1.79)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
Housing conditions	Traditional earthen floor	15 (1.36 ± 1.69)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	6.67 (-0.11-0.29)	0.42
	Traditional concrete floor	26 (2.36 ± 1.75)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
	Traditional slatted floor	53 (4.82 ± 2.14)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
	Semi-intensive concrete floor	11 (1.00 ± 1.48)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
	Semi-intensive slatted floor	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
Curtain use	Yes	35 (3.18 ± 1.99)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)	0.33
	No	70 (6.36 ± 1.75)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	1.43 (-0.11-0.29)
Repellent use	Yes	64 (5.82 ± 2.68)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)	0.33
	No	41 (3.73 ± 2.76)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	2.44 (-0.11-0.29)
Water source	Pond	27 (2.45 ± 2.34)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)	0.38
	Tube-well	73 (6.64 ± 2.77)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	1.37 (-0.11-0.29)
	River	5 (0.45 ± 1.51)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
Vaccination	Yes	6 (0.55 ± 1.04)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)	0.33
	No	99 (9.00 ± 1.67)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	1.01 (-0.11-0.29)
Vaccine awareness of farmer	Yes	54 (4.91 ± 2.51)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	1.85 (-0.11-0.29)	0.33
	No	51 (4.64 ± 2.38)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
Antibiotic use	Yes	16 (1.45 ± 1.92)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	6.25 (-0.11-0.29)	0.33
	No	89 (8.09 ± 2.12)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
Nodular lesion	Yes	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	100 (-0.11-0.29)	0.33
	No	104 (9.45 ± 1.51)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0-0)
Fever	Yes	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	100 (-0.11-0.29)	0.33
	No	104 (9.45 ± 1.51)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0.00)

 

CI: Confidence Interval.

 

The spread of disease into the rest of Asia and Europe is under the risk, and the recent spread of the disease in disease‐free countries indicating the importance of its transmission, as well as control and eradication (Namazi and Khodakaram, 2021; Sprygin et al., 2019). This virus is the most economically significant in the Poxviridae family affecting domestic ruminants. LSD has been listed as a World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)-notifiable disease due to its significant economic losses and the potential for rapid spread (Tuppurainen and Oura, 2012).

Cattle are the natural hosts for LSDV infection (Sevik et al., 2016; Tuppurainen et al., 2015). LSDV is mainly transmitted by arthropod vectors such as biting flies, ticks (Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, Rhipicephalus decoloratus and Amblyomma hebraeum), and Aedes mosquitoes (Chihota et al., 2001; Lubinga et al., 2014). Therefore, vector control is critical to reduce the spread of LSD in cattle. Transmission by contaminated feed and water may also occur. Direct transmission may occur via saliva, nasal secretions and semen (Annandale et al., 2014; Chihota et al., 2001; Tuppurainen et al., 2017).

As per the guidelines of World Organization for Animal Health (source: https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2021/03/lumpy-skin-disease.pdf),. LSDV

 

Table 4: Prevalence of LSD in Sadar, Barishal.

Variables		Samples examined (Mean ± SD)	Positive samples (Mean ± SD)	Percent prevalence (95% CI)	p-value
Age	< 1 year	45 (4.09 ± 1.64)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	4.44 (-0.09-0.45)	0.56
	1-3 years	24 (2.18 ± 1.47)	1 (0.09 ± 0.40)	4.17 (-0.11-0.29)
	3-7 years	33 (3.00 ± 1.34)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	3.03 (-0.11-0.29)
	7-12 years	03 (0.27 ± 0.65)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Breed and sex	Local male	11 (1.00 ± 1.26)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	9.09 (-0.11-0.29)	0.56
	Local female	36 (3.27 ± 2.94)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	2.78 (-0.11-0.29)
	Cross male	19 (1.73 ± 1.68)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
	Cross female	39 (3.90 ± 2.64)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	5.13 (-0.09-0.45)
Housing conditions	Traditional earthen floor	4 (0.36 ± 0.92)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	25.00 (-0.11-0.29)	0.46
	Traditional concrete floor	44 (4.00 ± 3.46)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	4.55 (-0.09-0.45)
	Traditional slatted floor	41 (3.73 ± 4.10)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
	Semi-intensive concrete floor	16 (1.45 ± 2.46)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	6.25 (-0.11-0.29)
	Semi-intensive slatted floor	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Curtain use	Yes	13 (1.18 ± 1.89)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.09
	No	92 (8.36 ± 2.16)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	4.35 (-0.09-0.82)
Repellent use	Yes	92 (8.36 ± 2.84)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	4.35 (-0.09-0.82)	0.09
	No	13 (1.18 ± 1.99)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Water source	Pond	50 (4.55 ± 4.11)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.05
	Tube-well	49 (4.45 ± 4.16)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	8.16 (-0.09-0.82)
	River	6 (0.55 ± 1.81)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Vaccination	Yes	3 (0.27 ± 0.65)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.09
	No	102 (9.27 ± 1.56)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	3.92 (-0.09-0.82)
Vaccine awareness of farmer	Yes	31 (2.82 ± 2.93)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	3.23 (-0.11-0.29)	0.29
	No	74 (6.73 ± 3.00)	3 (0.27 ± 0.47)	4.05 (-0.04-0.59)
Antibiotic use	Yes	3 (0.27 ± 0.65)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	33.33 (-0.11-0.29)	0.29
	No	102 (9.27 ± 1.56)	3 (0.27 ± 0.47)	2.94 (-0.11-0.59)
Nodular lesion	Yes	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	100.00 (-0.09-0.82)	0.09
	No	101 (9.18 ± 1.54)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Fever	Yes	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	100.00 (-0.09-0.82)	0.09
	No	101 (9.18 ± 1.54)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)

 

CI: Confidence Interval.

 

infections in severe form are highly characteristics, however milder forms can be confused with pseudocowpox, bovine papular stomatitis hence this could be one of the limitations of the study. However, a little evidence of these viruses in Bangladesh may allow the consideration for detecting LSD by the methodology of this study.

In this study the prevalence of LSD was determined in the local and cross-bred cattle of Barishal district in Bangladesh. The overall prevalence found in this study was 4.13%, which was comparatively lower than a previous study conducted by (Khalil et al., 2021). Observed 21% of morbidity in the similar region, and a decline number of affected animals could be due to seasonal variation and influence of geographic distribution on LSD outbreak due to vector prevalence involved in LSDV transmission. However, present study gives some baseline data about LSD infection in this region. Investigations in other areas of Bangladesh such as Chattogram and Rajshahi also showed a higher prevalence, suggestive of the influence of different climatic zone on LSD prevalence (Hasib et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2024). It has already been reported that cross-bred cattle are more susceptible to LSDV infection compared to local cattle (Gari et al., 2011; Kiplagat et al., 2020). In this study the same pattern was also found, where the cross-bred cattle were

 

Table 5: Prevalence of LSD in Bakerganj, Barishal.

Variables		Samples examined (Mean ± SD)	Positive samples (Mean ± SD)	Percent prevalence (95% CI)	p-value
Age	< 1 year	26 (2.36 ± 1.12)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	7.69 (-0.09-0.45)	0.31
	1-3 years	38 (3.45 ± 1.51)	4 (0.36 ± 0.67)	10.53 (-0.09-0.82)
	3-7 years	34 (3.09 ± 1.30)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	5.88 (-0.09-0.45)
	7-12 years	07 (0.64 ± 0.67)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Breed and sex	Local male	24 (2.18 ± 0.75)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.29
	Local female	61 (5.55 ± 1.29)	2 (0.18 ± 0.60)	3.28 (-0.22-0.59)
	Cross male	9 (0.82 ± 0.87)	1 (0.09 ± 0.30)	11.11 (-0.11-0.29)
	Cross female	11 (1.00 ± 1.34)	5 (0.45 ± 0.93)	45.45 (-0.17-1.08)
Housing conditions	Traditional earthen floor	2 (0.18 ± 0.60)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.01*
	Traditional concrete floor	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
	Traditional slatted floor	93 (8.45 ± 2.46)	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	8.60 (-0.07-1.53)
	Semi-intensive concrete floor	8 (0.73 ± 1.68)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
	Semi-intensive slatted floor	2 (0.18 ± 0.60)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Curtain use	Yes	4 (0.36 ± 0.92)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	50.00 (-0.09-0.45)	0.29
	No	101 (9.18 ± 1.66)	6 (0.55 ± 1.04)	5.94 (-0.15-1.24)
Repellent use	Yes	85 (7.73 ± 2.83)	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	9.41 (-0.07-1.53)	0.06
	No	20 (1.82 ± 2.75)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Water source	Pond	12 (1.09 ± 1.51)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	16.67 (-0.09-0.45)	0.15
	Tube-well	93 (8.45 ± 1.86)	6 (0.55 ± 1.04)	6.45 (-0.15-1.24)
	River	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Vaccination	Yes	3 (0.27 ± 0.90)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.06
	No	102 (9.27 ± 1.68)	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	7.84 (-0.07-1.53)
Vaccine awareness of farmer	Yes	3 (0.27 ± 0.90)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)	0.06
	No	102 (9.27 ± 1.68)	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	7.84 (-0.07-1.53)
Antibiotic use	Yes	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	2 (0.18 ± 0.40)	100.00 (-0.09-0.45)	0.29
	No	103 (9.36 ± 1.50)	6 (0.55 ± 1.04)	5.83 (-0.15-1.24)
Nodular lesion	Yes	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	100.00 (-0.07-1.53)	0.06
	No	97 (8.82 ± 1.72)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)
Fever	Yes	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	8 (0.73 ± 1.19)	100.00 (-0.07-1.53)	0.06
	No	97 (8.82 ± 1.72)	0 (0.00 ± 0.00)	0.00 (0.00)

 

CI: Confidence Interval; *p < 0.05

 

found to show a higher prevalence of LSDV infection in the cattle of Barishal district. The thin skin feature

and high yielding nature of cross-bred cattle are likely to make them prone to be affected by LSDV (Akther et al., 2023). A recent study reported lack of significant variations in the prevalence of LSD in cattle regarding age and sex (Elhaig et al., 2017). However, in this study a higher prevalence was observed in female cattle, which is consistent with the previous findings (Biswas et al., 2020; Hasib et al., 2021). It was found that low use of mosquito curtains and repellants favor the vectors’ presence as evidenced by other studies (Biswas et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2024). It has been observed that the farmers were not aware of LSD vaccines, and accordingly farmers did not vaccinate the cattle, indicating the importance of farmers’ awareness of vaccine against particular disease. Therefore, a mass awareness campaign is essential to be adopted by livestock authority to make aware the farmers about the usefulness of LSD vaccine in the prevention and control of LSDV infection as well as in the maintenance of cattle health and farmer’s economy. Moreover, the livestock authority should ensure the availability of effective LSD vaccine among farmers. In a nutshell, vector control measures by using curtains or repellents together with well-organized vaccination with sufficient coverage could be the ideal solution to control LSDV infection in Bangladesh. A comprehensive understanding of LSDV epidemiology including genetic diversity and multifaceted socio-economic variables in a larger scale is needed to assess the risk factors associated with the LSDV outbreaks in Barishal as well as in Bangladesh to develop a context-appropriate intervention for preventing infections and limiting the spread of LSDV.

 

Table 6: Prevalence of LSD in Bakerganj, Barishal in different housing conditions.

Housing condition		p-value
Traditional earthen floor	Traditional concrete floor	-
Traditional earthen floor	Traditional slatted floor	>0.05
Traditional earthen floor	Semi-intensive concrete floor	-
Traditional earthen floor	Semi-intensive slatted floor	-
Traditional concrete floor	Traditional slatted floor	>0.05
Traditional concrete floor	Semi-intensive concrete floor	-
Traditional concrete floor	Semi-intensive slatted floor	-
Traditional slatted floor	Semi-intensive concrete floor	>0.05
Traditional slatted floor	Semi-intensive slatted floor	>0.05
Semi-intensive concrete floor	Semi-intensive slatted floor	-

 

“-” Indicates there were no p-value because in that case in both type of houses no positive LSD case.

 

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by Research and Training Center (RTC) (PSTU/RTC-B/01/15/22/21 (79)), Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Patuakhali, Bangladesh.

Author’s Contributions

Conceptualization: WKA, MEHK. Data curation: WKA, MYA, MKA, MSR, MJI, MH, MIM, MAI. MEHK. Data analysis: MAI. Wrote the original draft: WKA, MYA, MAI, MEHK. Review and editing: WKA, MAI, MEHK. Funding acquisition: MEHK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

Akther, M., Akter, S.H., Sarker, S., Aleri, J.W., Annandale, H., Abraham, S. and Uddin, J.M. (2023). Global Burden of Lumpy Skin Disease, Outbreaks, and Future Challenges. Viruses., 15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/v15091861

Annandale, C.H., Holm, D.E., Ebersohn, K. and Venter, E.H. (2014). Seminal transmission of lumpy skin disease virus in heifers. Transbound Emerg Dis., 61(5), 443-448. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12045

Babiuk, S., Bowden, T.R., Boyle, D.B., Wallace, D.B. and Kitching, R.P. (2008). Capripoxviruses: an emerging worldwide threat to sheep, goats and cattle. Transbound Emerg Dis., 55(7), 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1865-1682.2008.01043.x

Badhy, S.C., Chowdhury, M.G.A., Settypalli, T.B.K., Cattoli, G., Lamien, C.E., Fakir, M.A.U., Akter, S., Osmani, M.G., Talukdar, F., Begum, N., Khan, I.A., Rashid, M.B. and Sadekuzzaman, M. (2021). Molecular characterization of lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) emerged in Bangladesh reveals unique genetic features compared to contemporary field strains. BMC Vet Res., 17(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-02751-x

Biswas, D., Saha, S.S., Biswas, S. and Sayeed, M.A. (2020). Outbreak of lumpy skin disease of cattle in south-west part of bangladesh and its clinical management. Vet. Sci.: Res. Rev., 6(2), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.vsrr/2020.6.100.108

Chihota, C.M., Rennie, L.F., Kitching, R.P. and Mellor, P.S. (2001). Mechanical transmission of lumpy skin disease virus by Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). Epidemiol Infect., 126(2), 317-321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268801005179

Elhaig, M.M., Selim, A. and Mahmoud, M. (2017). Lumpy skin disease in cattle: Frequency of occurrence in a dairy farm and a preliminary assessment of its possible impact on Egyptian buffaloes. Onderstepoort J Vet Res., 84(1), e1-e6. https://doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v84i1.1393

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Calistri, P., Clercq, K.D., Gubbins, S., Klement, E., Stegeman, A., Abrahantes, J.C., Marojevic, D., Antoniou, S.E. and Broglia, A. (2020). Lumpy skin disease epidemiological report IV:Data collection and analysis. . EFSA J., 18(2), e06010. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6010

Gari, G., Bonnet, P., Roger, F. and Waret-Szkuta, A. (2011). Epidemiological aspects and financial impact of lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med., 102(4), 274-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.07.003

Gupta, T., Patial, V., Bali, D., Angaria, S., Sharma, M. and Chahota, R. (2020). A review: Lumpy skin disease and its emergence in India. Vet Res Commun., 44(3-4), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-020-09780-1

Hasib, F.M.Y., Islam, M.S., Das, T., Rana, E.A., Uddin, M.H., Bayzid, M., Nath, C., Hossain, M.A., Masuduzzaman, M., Das, S. and Alim, M.A. (2021). Lumpy skin disease outbreak in cattle population of Chattogram, Bangladesh. Vet Med Sci, 7(5), 1616-1624. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.524

Kar, P.P., Araveti, P.B., Kuriakose, A. and Srivastava, A. (2022). Design of a multi-epitope protein as a subunit vaccine against lumpy skin disease using an immunoinformatics approach. Sci Rep., 12(1), 19411. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23272-z

Kayesh, M.E.H., Hussan, M.T., Hashem, M.A., Eliyas, M. and Anower, A.K.M.M. (2020). Lumpy skin disease virus infection: An emerging threat to cattle health in Bangladesh. Hosts and Viruses., 7(4), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.hv/2020/7.4.97.108

Khalil, M.I., Sarker, M.F.R., Hasib, F.M.Y. and Chowdhury, S. (2021). Outbreak investigation of lumpy skin disease in dairy farms at Barishal, Bangladesh. Turk. J, Agric. - Food Sci. Technol., 9(1), 205-209. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i1.205-209.3827

Khan, M.U., Polash, M.A.U.Z., Molla, A.A., Romance, M., Zahan, N., Ali, M.S., Raihan, J., Sarker, S. and Haque, M.H. (2024). Prevalence and Management Strategies for Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) in Cattle: Emphasizing a Region-Based Scenario in Bangladesh. European J. Vet. Med., 4(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejvetmed.2024.4.3.126

Khan, Y.R., Ali, A., Hussain, K., Ijaz, M., Rabbani, A.H., Khan, R.L., Abbas, S.N., Aziz, M.U., Ghaffar, A. and Sajid, H.A. (2021). A review: Surveillance of lumpy skin disease (LSD) a growing problem in Asia. Microb Pathog., 158, 105050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2021.105050

Kiplagat, S.K., Kitala, P.M., Onono, J.O., Beard, P.M. and Lyons, N.A. (2020). Risk Factors for Outbreaks of Lumpy Skin Disease and the Economic Impact in Cattle Farms of Nakuru County, Kenya. Front Vet Sci., 7, 259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00259

Lubinga, J.C., Clift, S.J., Tuppurainen, E.S., Stoltsz, W.H., Babiuk, S., Coetzer, J.A. and Venter, E.H. (2014). Demonstration of lumpy skin disease virus infection in Amblyomma hebraeum and Rhipicephalus appendiculatus ticks using immunohistochemistry. Ticks Tick Borne Dis., 5(2), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2013.09.010

Namazi, F. and Khodakaram Tafti, A. (2021). Lumpy skin disease, an emerging transboundary viral disease: A review. Vet Med Sci., 7(3), 888-896. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.434

Ramasamy, R. and Surendran, S.N. (2011). Possible impact of rising sea levels on vector-borne infectious diseases. BMC Infect Dis., 11, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-11-18

Ratyotha, K., Prakobwong, S. and Piratae, S. (2022). Lumpy skin disease: A newly emerging disease in Southeast Asia. Vet World, 15(12), 2764-2771. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2022.2764-2771

Salauddin, M., Kayesh, M.E.H., Ahammed, M.S., Saha, S. and Hossain, M.G. (2024). Development of membrane protein-based vaccine against lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) using immunoinformatic tools. Vet Med Sci., 10(3), e1438. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1438

Sanz-Bernardo, B., Haga, I.R., Wijesiriwardana, N., Basu, S., Larner, W., Diaz, A.V., Langlands, Z., Denison, E., Stoner, J., White, M., Sanders, C., Hawes, P.C., Wilson, A.J., Atkinson, J., Batten, C., Alphey, L., Darpel, K.E., Gubbins, S. and Beard, P.M. (2021). Quantifying and Modeling the Acquisition and Retention of Lumpy Skin Disease Virus by Hematophagus Insects Reveals Clinically but Not Subclinically Affected Cattle Are Promoters of Viral Transmission and Key Targets for Control of Disease Outbreaks. J Virol., 95(9).

Sevik, M., Avci, O., Dogan, M. and Ince, O.B. (2016). Serum Biochemistry of Lumpy Skin Disease Virus-Infected Cattle. Biomed Res Int., 2016, 6257984. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6257984

Sohier, C., Haegeman, A., Mostin, L., De Leeuw, I., Campe, W. V., De Vleeschauwer, A., Tuppurainen, E.S.M., van den Berg, T., De Regge, N. and De Clercq, K. (2019). Experimental evidence of mechanical lumpy skin disease virus transmission by Stomoxys calcitrans biting flies and Haematopota spp. horseflies. Sci Rep., 9(1), 20076. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56605-6

Sprygin, A., Pestova, Y., Bjadovskaya, O., Prutnikov, P., Zinyakov, N., Kononova, S., Ruchnova, O., Lozovoy, D., Chvala, I. and Kononov, A. (2020). Evidence of recombination of vaccine strains of lumpy skin disease virus with field strains, causing disease. PLoS One, 15(5), e0232584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232584

Sprygin, A., Pestova, Y., Wallace, D.B., Tuppurainen, E. and Kononov, A.V. (2019). Transmission of lumpy skin disease virus: A short review. Virus Res., 269, 197637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2019.05.015

Sumana, K., Revanaiah, Y., Shivachandra, S.B., Mothay, D., Apsana, R., Saminathan, M., Basavaraj, S. and Reddy, G.B.M. (2020). Molecular phylogeny of Capripoxviruses based on major immunodominant protein (P32) reveals circulation of host specific sheeppox and goatpox viruses in small ruminants of India. Infect Genet Evol., 85, 104472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104472

Tulman, E.R., Afonso, C.L., Lu, Z., Zsak, L., Kutish, G.F. and Rock, D.L. (2001). Genome of lumpy skin disease virus. J Virol., 75(15), 7122-7130. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.75.15.7122-7130.2001

Tuppurainen, E., Dietze, K., Wolff, J., Bergmann, H., Beltran-Alcrudo, D., Fahrion, A., Lamien, C.E., Busch, F., Sauter-Louis, C., Conraths, F.J., De Clercq, K., Hoffmann, B. and Knauf, S. (2021). Review: Vaccines and Vaccination against Lumpy Skin Disease. Vaccines (Basel), 9(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9101136

Tuppurainen, E.S., Lubinga, J.C., Stoltsz, W.H., Troskie, M., Carpenter, S.T., Coetzer, J.A., Venter, E.H. and Oura, C.A. (2013). Mechanical transmission of lumpy skin disease virus by Rhipicephalus appendiculatus male ticks. Epidemiol Infect., 141(2), 425-430. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268812000805

Tuppurainen, E.S. and Oura, C.A. (2012). Review: lumpy skin disease: an emerging threat to Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Transbound Emerg Dis., 59(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01242.x

Tuppurainen, E.S., Venter, E.H., Coetzer, J.A. and Bell-Sakyi, L. (2015). Lumpy skin disease: attempted propagation in tick cell lines and presence of viral DNA in field ticks collected from naturally-infected cattle. Ticks Tick Borne Dis., 6(2), 134-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.11.002

Tuppurainen, E.S.M., Venter, E.H., Shisler, J.L., Gari, G., Mekonnen, G.A., Juleff, N., Lyons, N.A., De Clercq, K., Upton, C., Bowden, T.R., Babiuk, S. and Babiuk, L.A. (2017). Review: Capripoxvirus Diseases: Current Status and Opportunities for Control. Transbound Emerg Dis., 64(3), 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12444.

Uddin, M.B., Tanni, F.Y., Hoque, S.F., Sajib, E.H., Faysal, M.A., Rahman, M.A., Galib, A., Emon, A.A., Hossain, M.M., Hasan, M. and Ahmed, S.S.U. (2022). A candidate multi-epitope vaccine against Lumpy skin disease. Transbound Emerg Dis., https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14718