DISCUSSION
Palm civets in Guangdong province were first culled during May 2003, when captive wildlife was considered a potential infectious source. These animals reentered Xinyuan animal markets at the end of August 2003, after the ban on selling certain species of farmed wildlife in China was lifted (
6). The reappearance of SARS-CoV-like virus in the Xinyuan animal market in winter 2003 represented a significant new risk to humans throughout the world. We demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-like virus was overwhelmingly prevalent in palm civets and raccoon dogs in the market itself (100% of sampled animals were positive for virus). The continued presence of SARS-CoV-like virus in the Xinyuan animal market thus provided a pool where the virus may have persisted and evolved over extended periods of time (
4,
28).
Since 75 of the 91 palm civets sampled at Xinyuan market were claimed to have been traded from other provinces, it was reasonable to speculate that the virus was brought into the market by animals infected during the transportation period or on farms. However, SARS-CoV-like virus was not detected in 1,107 palm civets examined from 25 farms in 12 provinces of China which were sampled between January and September 2004 (Fig.
1; see Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). Of the 25 farms, 4 were sampled twice and 1 was sampled three times. Note that we traced market civets back to a farmer who directly distributed animals to markets. His 17 palm civets sampled at the Xinyuan animal market all tested positive for SARS-CoV-like virus. However, all of the palm civets (
n = 169) at his farm in Henan province tested negative for SARS-CoV-like virus by the same PCR method. This finding strongly suggested that the palm civets were infected at the market by other palm civets or by other animals harboring the virus rather than at the farm. A recently published serological study detailed a very similar observation (
27). While all of 47 civet serum samples collected in early June 2003 from two farms in other provinces were negative for SARS-CoV neutralizing antibodies, 14 of 18 samples obtained from the Xinyuan animal market in January 2004 tested positive. In addition, four animals from a farm in Shanwei, Guangdong, showed low levels of neutralizing antibodies; however, it was claimed that most animals from this farm were obtained from various markets within Guangdong province. It was suggested that the animals had possibly been exposed to SARS-CoV prior to their arrival on the farm (
27).
If the animals were infected at the market, then new arrivals should possess a relatively low or nil viral load, and the viral load should increase in a similar manner to that observed during the experimental housing of uninfected animals with an infected animal. Martina and coworkers reported that when noninfected cats and ferrets were housed with an infected animal, transmission occurred, and that viral titers increased gradually after 2 days, peaking on days 6 to 8 posthousing (
14). In the present study, animals started shedding virus as early as 2 days after arrival. Note that there were no data for day 1 and that only one animal was observed at the 2-day time point. An average of 10
4.43 viral copies per ml of specimen was observed for six palm civets which had been at the market for 4 days. The peak virus load was observed in animals which had been at the market for 7 days; this declined by day 15 (Fig.
2). The observation that the transmission of virus to the palm civets at the market reflects the pattern observed for the experimental transmission of SARS-CoV-like virus between laboratory animals indicates that both of these situations may mirror natural virus transmission. When palm civets were experimentally infected, the viral genome was detected by RT-PCR in throat and anal swabs from 3 to 18 days postinoculation (
29). Although the virus is rapidly cleared from experimentally infected mice, hamsters, cats, and ferrets, it is possible that it persists in market civets for a longer period of time. Viral genomic RNA could be detected in the spleens and lymph nodes of experimentally infected palm civets for up to 34 or 35 days postinoculation (
29). This apparent persistent infection of SARS-CoV-like virus in palm civets supports the idea that they are a major animal reservoir of infection.
It seems that palm civets are extremely susceptible to SARS-CoV and that the Xinyuan animal market was likely the source of infection, where the virus was amplified, circulated, excreted though the respiratory and intestinal tracts of palm civets, and subsequently disseminated to cause sporadic disease in humans. After the palm civets and other highly suspect animals were cleared from the market in January 2004, no further natural human infections were reported. The initial introduction of the virus to the market might have been via a raccoon dog, a palm civet, another as yet unidentified animal, or a combination of these. The zoological biodiversity of the Xinyuan animal market was large, including live donkeys, calves, goats, sheep, piglets, American minks, raccoon dogs, farmed foxes, hog badgers, porcupines, nutria, guinea pigs, rabbits, and birds. Animals were presented in small wire cages piled atop one another, which highly favors the transmission of any pathogens present. The mixing of wild and domestic animals of various species and geographic origins likely further increased the probability of pathogen transmission. Continuing studies should be conducted with a view to monitoring the possible reemergence of virus at the Xinyuan animal market and tracing the original animal reservoir.
Nucleotide signature variation has been observed in various SARS-CoV-like virus sequences and has been put forward as a genetic tool to define distinct genotypes, to trace the sources of infection, and to understand the evolution of the SARS-CoV-like virus. However, all of the data reported so far have focused on human virus sequences, for which only a few SNV residues have been defined (
4,
5,
20,
26,
31). Based on SNV patterns, phylogenetic analysis, and the strain-related clinical and epidemiological records available, we divided the SARS-CoV-like viruses into the following four groups: the prototype group, the low-pathogenicity group, the high-pathogenicity group, and the epidemic group (Fig.
3 to
5; Table
2). The prototype group included three virus sequences, two from raccoon dogs and one from a palm civet. We designated it as such because none of the 27 SNV residues of the spike gene were mutated in those virus sequences compared with human isolates (Fig.
3 to
5). In addition, when one of these (A031G) was used as a root to construct a phylogenetic tree using maximum likelihood methods, the three sequences seemed to form a single group from which the other SARS-CoV viruses evolved (Fig.
4 and
5). None of the viruses in this group has been detected in humans, suggesting that they only infect animals.
The low-pathogenicity group included most of the S gene sequences obtained in this study, as well as those responsible for the sporadic infections of winter 2003-2004 and recently published sequences from market palm civets (
21). It was designated the low-pathogenicity group for several reasons: first, SNV residues 2 to 7 of the spike gene were mutated; second, it formed a distinct group on the constructed phylogenetic tree; third, the most mutated sequence (GD03T0013, with 7 SNVs) had caused human infection in the 2003-2004 period; and finally, and most importantly, infected patients had only mild clinical presentations and low infectivity, with none of the 113 close contacts of the four patients becoming infected (Table
2) (
4,
12). It seems that although members of the low-pathogenicity group can infect both humans and animals, they cannot cause an outbreak, since the SNVs critical for SARS-CoV binding to receptors of Vero cells had not been extensively mutated (
23,
24).
The high-pathogenicity group included isolates involved in the so-called early phase of the 2003 epidemic. Based on epidemiological investigations, the 2003 epidemic was divided into early, middle, and late phases by a group of Chinese scientists (
4). The early phase was defined as the period from 16 November 2002 to 30 January 2003. It featured 11 index cases that had arisen locally in the absence of any contact history, identified from different geographical locations within Guangdong province (
4). Virus isolates or sequences in this group were mainly from patients with contact histories traceable to some of the earliest independent cases in Guangzhou and not those isolated from the late-phase epidemic of 2003. These viruses had 16 to 22 of the 27 SNVs mutated, and they formed a separate group on the phylogenetic tree (Fig.
3 to
5). One of them, GD01, had a 29-nucleotide sequence that was suggested to be a marker for animal isolates that is deleted when viruses adapt to humans (
18). Isolates from palm civets and raccoon dogs obtained in 2003 were also included in the high-pathogenicity group, although they have been detected in neither patients nor palm civets from other markets so far. Therefore, this group of viruses may reflect natural virus evolution to human adaptation and may cause severe clinical presentations.
Viruses with 25 or all of the 27 SNV residues mutated on the spike gene were assigned to the epidemic group, since all of them were involved in large outbreaks and in the worldwide epidemic, including BJ01 (Beijing), TW1 (Taiwan), Urbani (Vietnam), TOR-2 (Canada), and HKU-39849 and CUHK-W1 (Hong Kong) (
3,
13,
19,
31,
32). These viruses were dominant in the middle and late phases of the 2003 epidemic. The middle phase began on 31 January 2003, when the first major SARS outbreak occurred in a hospital; a superspread event was identified and was associated with >130 primary and secondary infections. The late phase began with the Hotel M outbreak on 21 February 2003 (
4). Isolate-related clinical and epidemiological information suggested that viruses in this group were responsible for severe clinical presentations, high infectivity, many close-contact infections, a large number of deaths, large outbreaks, and/or the worldwide epidemic. When adult palm civets were experimentally infected, the epidemic group isolate SARS-CoV BJ01 caused higher average body temperatures and stimulated slightly stronger antibody production than the high-pathogenicity virus GD01, which contains the signature 29-nucleotide sequence (
29). It should be noted that body temperature is the only measurable clinical symptom presented by infected civets and other nonhuman animals.
Through the study of the accumulation of SNV residue mutations and phylogenetic analysis data of the S gene, we can observe SARS-CoV-like virus microevolutionary events as they unfold (Fig.
3 to
5). The evolution event seems to have been initiated at nucleotides 23952 (C→G) and 24730 (G→A), resulting in changes at amino acid residues 821 and 1080 in the S2 region of the S protein. The S2 domain contains heptad repeats 1 and 2 (HR1 and HR2). Target cell-bound S protein molecules might change their conformation by associating via HR1 and HR2 interactions to form an oligomeric structure, leading to the fusion of viral and target cell membranes (
8). Five additional SNV residue changes resulted in four amino acid substitutions, at residues 147, 228, 240, and 479, of the S protein. In the second stage of evolution, the virus had an additional 14 SNV residues mutated, causing 11 amino acid changes (positions 609, 462, 360, 472, 480, 487, 613, 665, 743, 765, and 1163; Fig.
3 to
5). In the third stage, the remaining six SNV residues were mutated, resulting in four amino acid changes, at positions 344, 778, 227, and 244 (Fig.
3 to
5). Fourteen of the 15 amino acid changes in the second and third stages occurred in the S1 region. It has recently been reported that binding of the S1 domain to its receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), on host cells is responsible for SARS-CoV entry into cells. Sui and colleagues have suggested that the N-terminal 261 to 672 amino acids of the S protein could compete with soluble ACE2 for an association with the S1 domain (
23). Li et al. generated two sets of truncated fragments of the spike protein and identified a fragment of 259 amino acids (amino acids 441 to 700) as the major immunodominant epitope. They speculated that amino acids 1 to 510 of the S glycoprotein represent a unique domain containing the receptor-binding site, analogous to the S1 subunit of other coronaviruses (
11). These data suggest that the first 590 amino acids of the SARS-CoV S protein are required for interaction with the surfaces of Vero E6 cells.
SNV residue analysis also provided insights into the mechanism that the SARS-CoV-like virus utilizes to cross the species barrier and cause disease in humans (
1). The difference between GD03T0013, the virus sequence determined from the first SARS patient in 2003-2004, and the most closely related animal isolate from a palm civet, C028G, a member of the low-pathogenicity group, is a single amino acid substitution (from K or R to N) at position 479 of the spike protein (Fig.
3) (
4). The amino acid variations between GZ01 and SZ3 or SZ16 are at positions 360, 487, 665, and 1163 of the S protein (Fig.
3) (
4,
5). These amino acid substitutions may play a critical role in the ability of the SARS-CoV-like virus to jump from animal hosts to humans and cause severe disease (Fig.
4 and
5) (
6,
10,
20). However, this hypothesis remains to be confirmed experimentally.
Song et al. have recently reported that SARS-CoV evolves at a relatively constant neutral rate in both humans and palm civets, based on neutral mutation rate analysis of five major coding sequences (orf1ab, S, E, M, and N) of virus sequences from palm civets (2003 and 2004) and human patients (2004) (
21). When a rooted phylogenetic tree was constructed, virus sequences obtained from palm civets in 2003 and 2004 were not in the same primary transmission lineage. Therefore, the 2002-2003 epidemic and the 2003-2004 episodes were caused by two independent viral transmissions from animals to humans (
21). There is no evidence that SARS-CoV is still circulating in the human population, but it appears to continue to circulate in animals, particularly in palm civets and raccoon dogs (H. Q. Jing, X. G. Jiang, H. Zhen, H. X. Wang, Z. G. Cui, D. Jin, Y. C. Xiao, M. Y. Yan, B. Kan, and J. Xu, unpublished data). Our observations suggest that when SARS-CoV-like virus arrives at an animal market, the majority of palm civets, if not all, will become infected, and that the virus will evolve rapidly in animals to cause disease. Therefore, it is critical to identify the original animal reservoir to remove the continuing threat of SARS.