SARS-CoV-2 Outbreaks on Mink Farms-A Review of Current Knowledge on Virus Infection, Spread, Spillover, and Containment.

Many studies have been conducted to explore outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed mink and their intra-/inter-species spread and spillover to provide data to the scientific community, protecting human and animal health. Studies report anthropozoonotic introduction, which was initially documented in April 2020 in the Netherlands, and subsequent inter-/intra-species spread of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed mink, likely due to SARS-CoV-2 host tropism capable of establishing efficient interactions with host ACE2 and the mink hosts' ability to enhance swift viral transmission due to their density, housing status, and occupational contacts. Despite the rigorous prevention and control measures adopted, transmission of the virus within and between animal species was efficient, resulting in the development of mink-associated strains able to jump back and forth among the mink hosts and other animal/human contacts. Current knowledge recognizes the mink as a highly susceptible animal host harboring the virus with or without clinical manifestations, furthering infection transmission as a hidden animal reservoir. A One Health approach is, thus, recommended in SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and monitoring on mink farms and of their susceptible contact animals to identify and better understand these potential animal hosts.

Longitudinal examination of urine pH, specific gravity, protein, culture, and antimicrobial resistance profiles in healthy dogs.

BACKGROUND: Urine is routinely evaluated in dogs to assess health. Reference ranges for many urine properties are well established, but the scope of variation in these properties over time within healthy dogs is not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: Longitudinally characterize urine properties in healthy dogs over 3 months. ANIMALS: Fourteen healthy client-owned dogs. METHODS: In this prospective study, dogs were evaluated for health; then, mid-stream free-catch urine was collected from each dog at 12 timepoints over 3 months. Urine pH, urine specific gravity (USG), protein, cultures, and antimicrobial resistance profiles were assessed at each timepoint. RESULTS: Urine pH varied within and between dogs over time (Friedman's test: within P = .03; between P < .005). However, USG, protein, and bacterial diversity of urine were consistent within dogs over time, and only varied between dogs (Kruskal-Wallis: between all P < .005). Antimicrobial resistant isolates were identified in 12 out of 14 dogs with 34 of 48 of the isolates demonstrating resistance to amoxicillin. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Urine pH should be assessed at multiple timepoints via pH meter before making clinical decisions. Mid-stream free-catch urine with high concentrations of bacteria (>105 CFU/mL) should not be considered the only indicator of urinary tract infection. Bacterial isolates from dogs in this study had widespread resistance to amoxicillin/oxacillin underscoring the need for antimicrobial stewardship.