Chapter 35: Disease transmission at the interface between wild and domestic Suiform species399
initiated captive breeding programmes for some endangered
species of pigs such as the pygmy hog, the Visayan warty pig or
the Javan warty pig. Those programmes are an excellent way to
gather information on the biology and health of those species in
captivity. However, captive collections, often maintained in high
densities and under stressful conditions, are also more susceptible
to circulating pathogens (Shome et al. 2010; Barman et al. 2012).Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of the current knowl-
edge of pathogens affecting wild pig species and presented some
selected case studies of host–pathogen interactions between pig
species, sometimes in multi-host systems, reported in the litera-
ture. Anthropogenic factors such as the introduction of exotic
species, hunting and farming practices, but also global trends
such as the destruction of tropical forests and growing human
encroachment into wildlife habitats, may introduce changes that
can influence those interactions, potentially leading to disease
transmission. Current knowledge suggests that interactions
between wild pig individuals and DP are much more common
in the case of wild, feral, and domestic forms of Sus scrofa. For
most of the other species of wild pigs which are more genetically
distant, close contacts with DP seem less significant. However,
molecular tools and recent technologies have proved that inter-
species transmission of pathogens shared between wild pigs,
livestock, and humans can occur even in the absence of direct
contacts, through indirect interactions This review has shown
that the gaps of information related to the health of a large major-
ity of pig-like species worldwide and its implications in terms
of conservation of those species and animal and public health,
are huge. In that sense, ecological and epidemiological studies
are necessary in order to provide a clearer picture of the poten-
tial and existing pathogen dynamics between other suiformspecies and their environment. However, the implementation
of these studies in remote tropical areas can become extremely
challenging and expensive, considering that the capture and
manipulation of some elusive wild swine species is complex and
requires a lot of time and patience. For some pig species that are
abundant, legally hunted and not endangered, hunter networks
can be used to collect samples and provide information on
wildlife diseases surveillance. (This is the case for Sus scrofa in
developed countries.) The replication of this approach in devel-
oping countries should be explored as a way to obtain easier
access to biological samples, but it can only be recommended
for those species which are legally hunted and not endangered.
Similarly, the development of novel, non-invasive diagnostic
techniques that improve the detection of pathogens in the field
(Miller et al. 2015) and do not require animal physical restraint
(Nieto-Pelegrín et al. 2015), or that reduce the constraints of
conservation and transport of samples to the laboratories, show
some promise to improve the efficiency of disease surveys in
natural populations of wild pigs and the generation of more data
on circulation and transmission of pathogens affecting their
populations and environment. In that sense, the development of
metagenomic approaches could reduce sampling effort and also
facilitate the production of information for several diseases with
a single sample (Blomström et al. 2012). It is hoped that these
new developments will be able to improve the generation of data
on the diseases of suiform species and its implications.Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Alex Caron and Rafael Reyna-Hurtado
for taking time to review the manuscript and making construc-
tive comments. Equally, our gratitude goes to Alex Tukumunde,
for providing unpublished information on sympatric wild pigs
in Uganda.References
Adlhoch, C., Wolf, A., Meisel, H., et al.
(2009). High HEV presence in four
different wild boar populations in
East and West Germany. Veterinary
Microbiology 139: 270–278.
Alexandrov, T., Stefanov, D., Kamenov, P.,
et al. (2013). Surveillance of foot-and-
mouth disease (FMD) in susceptible
wildlife and domestic ungulates in
Southeast of Bulgaria following a FMD
case in wild boar. Veterinary Microbiology
166: 84–90.
Algers, B., Blokhuis, H., Bøtner, A., et al.
(2009). Porcine brucellosis (Brucella suis).
Scientific opinion of the Panel on Animal
Health and Welfare. The EFSA Journal
1144: 1–112.
Altrichter, M., Taber, A., Beck, H., et al.
(2012). Range-wide declines of a key
Neotropical ecosystem architect, the Near
Threatened white-lipped peccary Tayassu
pecari. Oryx 46: 87–98.
Artois, M., Depner, K. R., Guberti, V., et al.
(2002). Classical swine fever (hog cholera)
in wild boar in Europe. Revue Scientifique
et Technique – Office International des
Épizooties 21: 287–304.
Arzt, J., Baxt, B., Grubman, M. J., et al.
(2011). The pathogenesis of foot-and-
mouth disease II: viral pathways in
swine, small ruminants, and wildlife;
myotropism, chronic syndromes, and
molecular virus–host interactions.
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 58:
305–326.
Barasona, J. A., VerCauteren, K. C.,
Saklou, N., Gortazar, C. & Vicente, J.
(2013). Effectiveness of cattle operated
bump gates and exclusion fences in
preventing ungulate multi-host sanitary
interaction. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 111: 42–50.
Barasona, J., Latham, M., Acevedo, P., et al.
(2014). Spatiotemporal interactionsbetween wild boar and cattle: implications
for cross-species disease transmission.
Veterinary Research 45: 1–11.
Barman, N. N., Bora, D. P., Tiwari, A. K.,
et al. (2012). Classical swine fever in
the pygmy hog. Revue Scientifique et
Technique, Office Nationale des Epizooties,
31: 919–930.
Barth, S., Geue, L., Hinsching, A., et al.
(2017). Experimental evaluation of faecal
Escherichia coli and Hepatitis E Virus as
biological indicators of contacts between
domestic pigs and Eurasian wild boar.
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 64:
487–494.
Blome, S., Gabriel, C. & Beer, M. (2013).
Pathogenesis of African swine fever in
domestic pigs and European wild boar.
Virus Research 173: 122–130.
Blomström, A. L., Ståhl, K., Masembe, C.,
et al. (2012). Viral metagenomic analysis
of bushpigs (Potamochoerus larvatus).03712:55:54