Decapod Iridescent Virus 1

Overview and Taxonomy of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1

Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) represents a paradigm-shifting pathogen in crustacean virology, having emerged as one of the most formidable threats to global decapod aquaculture since its initial identification. The virus was first recognized in the mid-2010s during investigations of mass mortality events in farmed Cherax quadricarinatus (redclaw crayfish) and Penaeus vannamei (whiteleg shrimp) in the People’s Republic of China, where it was initially referred to by two distinct names, Cherax quadricarinatus iridovirus (CQIV) and shrimp hemocyte iridescent virus (SHIV), before taxonomic harmonization was achieved [2, 3, 21]. The disease caused by this agent has been officially designated as “infection with decapod iridescent virus 1” and is notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), which lists it as an emerging crustacean disease of significant economic and transboundary concern [14, 22, 28]. Furthermore, China’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs has classified DIV1 as a Class II animal pandemic disease, underscoring its national-level biosecurity importance [14]. The virus’s capacity to induce mortality rates approaching 100% in naive populations, coupled with its rapidly expanding host range across diverse crustacean taxa, has galvanized an intensive international research effort over the past half-decade [6, 13].

Taxonomic Placement and Nomenclatural History

The taxonomic classification of DIV1 underwent a critical refinement following its discovery, resolving ambiguities that had arisen from co-circulating strains. The Executive Committee of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) formally approved DIV1 in 2019 as the type species of a novel genus, Decapodiridovirus, within the subfamily Betairidovirinae of the family Iridoviridae [21]. This taxonomic assignment was based on a constellation of molecular, genomic, and ultrastructural characteristics that clearly distinguished DIV1 from other known iridoviruses, including those infecting fish, amphibians, and insects. Phylogenetic analyses consistently place DIV1 within a well-supported clade that is distinct from the genera Ranavirus, Lymphocystivirus, Megalocytivirus, and Iridovirus, with the predicted major capsid protein (MCP) sequence serving as the primary molecular chronometer for these delineations [3, 13, 25]. Notably, the MCP genes of geographically and temporally distinct DIV1 isolates, including the earliest SHIV 20141215 strain, the CQIV CN01 isolate, and the more recent DIV1-20190514 isolate, exhibit 100% nucleotide sequence identity, indicating remarkable genetic conservation across the species [18]. This level of conservation has important implications for both diagnostic assay design and vaccine target selection, as it suggests that the MCP epitope repertoire may be relatively uniform across circulating strains.

The initial taxonomic confusion arose because two independent research groups simultaneously characterized the virus from different hosts. The SHIV strain was isolated from diseased P. vannamei in 2014, while CQIV was recovered from C. quadricarinatus in 2015. Early literature therefore contains references to both “shrimp hemocyte iridescent virus” and “Cherax quadricarinatus iridovirus” as separate entities [2, 21]. Subsequent comparative genomics and cross-infection experiments definitively demonstrated that these were conspecific, leading to the adoption of the unified binomial DIV1 under the ICTV’s Decapodiridovirus genus. The establishment of this monotypic genus reflected the unique evolutionary trajectory of DIV1, which appears to have diverged from other iridovirids concomitant with the radiation of its decapod hosts.

Virion Morphology and Biophysical Properties

Structurally, DIV1 exhibits the canonical iridovirus architecture: mature virions are icosahedral, non-enveloped (though an envelope may be acquired during budding), and measure approximately 150–158 nm in diameter, as determined by transmission electron microscopy of ultrathin sections [2, 7, 13]. The particle size is consistent across reports, with a mean diameter of approximately 157.9 nm reported for isolates infecting Macrobrachium rosenbergii [2] and approximately 150 nm for those infecting Exopalaemon carinicauda [7]. Negative staining of virions from homogenized tissues reveals particles with a distinct hexagonal profile and an electron-dense core surrounded by a lipid bilayer, with a reported diameter of 112 ± 2 nm in some preparations, likely reflecting shrinkage artefact or variation in measurement methodology [13].

The hallmark iridescence that gives the virus its common name, observable as a blue-to-purple sheen when pelleted virions are illuminated at oblique angles, is a consequence of the quasi-crystalline paracrystalline arrays formed by tightly packed viral particles within infected cells [21]. This optical phenomenon, while not pathognomonic, is a useful macroscopic indicator of high-titer infection in laboratory settings. The capsid is composed predominantly of the major capsid protein (MCP), which is encoded by ORF 006L in the DIV1 genome and constitutes the principal structural component, along with at least 23 additional virion-associated proteins identified through proteomic mass spectrometry [19]. Among these, six contain predicted transmembrane domains, three possess Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) integrin-binding motifs, and nine exhibit significant homology to functionally characterized proteins from other iridovirids, suggesting conserved roles in host-cell attachment and entry [19].

Genomic Architecture and Molecular Features

The DIV1 genome is a linear, double-stranded DNA molecule ranging from approximately 166 to 168 kilobase pairs (kbp) in length, with a GC content of approximately 34.5% [3]. The complete genome sequence of the DIV1-ZH strain, a highly pathogenic isolate from M. rosenbergii, was determined to be 166,964 bp with 34.56% GC content, encoding 176 predicted open reading frames (ORFs) [3]. This genomic size is consistent with other members of the family Iridoviridae, which typically possess genomes in the 100–220 kbp range. Comparative genomics of four DIV1 isolates, two from crab (Portunus trituberculatus) and two from shrimp (Marsupenaeus japonicus), revealed that the crab-derived isolates share a close phylogenetic relationship with those from shrimp, supporting the hypothesis of a common ancestral origin and potentially indicating cross-species transmission events facilitated by polyculture practices [25].

The MCP gene is the most extensively characterized genomic element and serves as the target for nearly all molecular diagnostic assays, including TaqMan probe-based quantitative PCR (qPCR), recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), and SYBR Green I-based real-time PCR methods [5, 9-11, 15, 17, 20]. The DIV1 ATPase gene (ORF114R) has also been employed as a secondary target for nested PCR optimization [23]. The proteomic catalog of purified DIV1 virions identified 30 virus-encoded proteins, including the MCP, as well as proteins involved in DNA replication, nucleotide metabolism, and virion assembly [19]. Notably, the envelope protein DIV1-168L has been shown to interact with host cuticle protein 8 (CP8) from L. vannamei, a finding that provides molecular insight into the virus’s entry mechanism and tissue tropism [12].

Host Range and Susceptibility Profile

DIV1 possesses an exceptionally broad host range among decapod crustaceans, a feature that distinguishes it from many other shrimp viruses that exhibit narrower host specificity. As of the most comprehensive surveys, the virus has been detected in at least 15 species spanning multiple infraorders, including penaeid shrimp, palaemonid prawns, astacid and parastacid crayfish, and portunid crabs [4, 22, 27]. Among these, the most economically significant hosts include P. vannamei, M. rosenbergii, C. quadricarinatus, Procambarus clarkii, M. nipponense, E. carinicauda, and Scylla paramamosain (mud crab) [2, 4, 7, 8]. In addition, DIV1 has been detected in non-decapod taxa, including polychaete worms and cladocerans, suggesting that these organisms may serve as mechanical vectors or reservoir hosts in pond ecosystems [2].

The confirmation of susceptibility follows rigorous Koch’s postulates-type criteria, including molecular detection, histopathological examination with identification of characteristic eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusions and nuclear pyknosis, in situ hybridization using DIG-labeled LAMP probes (ISDL), and transmission electron microscopy demonstrating viral replication in target tissues [2, 4, 7, 14]. The mud crab S. paramamosain was formally established as a susceptible species through experimental infections demonstrating that the virus can induce disease via both intramuscular injection and oral routes, with quantitative PCR revealing high viral loads in hepatopancreas, gonads, and gills [4]. Similarly, the ridgetail white prawn E. carinicauda is susceptible, though it displays a degree of tolerance following per os challenge mimicking natural exposure, suggesting that the route of exposure critically modulates disease outcome [7].

Critically, host susceptibility is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon. For instance, Penaeus chinensis (Chinese white shrimp) has been shown to be nearing a critical threshold of susceptibility: while intramuscular injection leads to 100% mortality within 5 days post-infection, per os challenge results in only low viral loads that are cleared by the host by 9 days post-infection, indicative of innate resistance under natural exposure conditions [1]. This finding highlights the importance of distinguishing between experimental susceptibility (often assessed by invasive injection) and natural susceptibility (assessed by oral challenge), as the latter more accurately reflects field-level transmission dynamics. Conversely, kuruma shrimp (Penaeus japonicus) are fully susceptible to DIV1, with both per os and intramuscular routes resulting in nearly 100% mortality and systemic viral loads exceeding 108 copies/μg DNA [14]. In black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), natural infections have been documented, though with lower mortality (20%) compared to whiteleg shrimp, which experience 100% mortality under similar conditions [13]. Wild-caught P. monodon broodstock from the Indian Ocean have also tested positive for DIV1 via PCR, raising concerns about potential introduction pathways via asymptomatic carriers used for hatchery seed production [26].

It is important to note that susceptibility also extends to various life stages, and viral loads are distributed unevenly across tissues. In M. rosenbergii, hematopoietic tissue harbors the highest DIV1 load, accounting for approximately 25.4% of the total viral burden, while hepatopancreas and muscle contain the lowest loads at approximately 2.44% each [2]. The gonadal tropism observed in S. paramamosain raises the possibility of vertical transmission, though direct evidence for transovarial transfer remains to be established [4].

Cellular Entry and Early Infection Stages

The molecular mechanisms underlying DIV1 entry into host cells have been elucidated in detail for hematopoietic tissue cells of C. quadricarinatus. The virus enters via caveola-mediated endocytosis, a process that requires membrane cholesterol, dynamin GTPase activity, and an intact microtubule cytoskeleton [24]. Pharmacological inhibition studies demonstrated that clathrin-mediated endocytosis inhibitors (pitstop 2, chlorpromazine) failed to suppress DIV1 infection, excluding this pathway. In contrast, cholesterol-depleting agents (methyl-β-cyclodextrin, nystatin) and caveolar inhibitors (phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate, genistein, wortmannin) effectively blocked viral invasion [24]. Furthermore, post-internalization trafficking requires an acidic pH environment and targets the Golgi apparatus, as evidenced by co-localization and pull-down assays showing association with caveolin-1. This entry pathway distinguishes DIV1 from white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), which utilizes clathrin-mediated endocytosis, and provides a framework for developing targeted antiviral interventions [24]. The virus’s capacity to hijack host glycolytic metabolism, inducing a HIF-1α-mediated Warburg-like effect, further underscores the intimate metabolic reprogramming that occurs upon infection, with hexokinase serving as a central regulatory hub in M. rosenbergii [16].

Global Distribution and Epidemiological Context

Initially confined to the People’s Republic of China, DIV1 has since been reported from Taiwan (Province of China), Thailand, the Indian Ocean region, and South Korea (where emergency quarantine measures were implemented in 2020) [13, 22, 26, 27]. Its inclusion in the WOAH-listed diseases and the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific’s Quarterly Aquatic Animal Disease Report underscores its status as a transboundary pathogen requiring international coordination for surveillance and control [14]. The development of rapid, field-deployable diagnostic tools, including RPA combined with lateral flow strips, real-time RPA, and CRISPR/Cas12a-based bacterial microrobots, aims to bridge the gap between laboratory-based detection and the need for real-time monitoring at production sites [5, 10, 29]. The import risk analysis conducted by South Korea identified crustaceans intended for animal feed or bait, as well as polychaete worms, as potential pathways for viral introduction, necessitating quarantine measures for these commodities [22]. As the host range continues to expand and the virus spreads to new geographic regions, the need for a comprehensive understanding of its taxonomy, biology, and epidemiology has never been more urgent.

Virion Structure and Genomic Organization

Overview of DIV1 as a Distinct Iridovirus

Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) represents the first and, to date, only recognized species within the genus Decapodiridovirus, family Iridoviridae [1, 21]. This taxonomic distinction, formally approved by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) in 2019, underscores the unique evolutionary position of DIV1 relative to other iridovirids that primarily infect insects, fish, and amphibians [21, 39]. As an emerging pathogen of critical concern to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), DIV1 is listed as a notifiable crustacean disease agent, reflecting its high virulence, broad host range among decapods, and substantial economic impact on global aquaculture [14, 22]. The structural and genomic architecture of DIV1 exhibits features characteristic of the Iridoviridae while harboring distinct elements that contribute to its pathogenesis in shrimp, prawns, crayfish, and crabs [1, 25, 39].

Virion Morphology and Physical Properties

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of ultrathin sections from naturally and experimentally infected hosts has consistently revealed that DIV1 virions are non-enveloped, icosahedral particles with a mean diameter ranging from approximately 150 to 158 nm [2, 7, 8, 18]. Measurements from various studies indicate a diameter of 157.9 ± 9.2 nm in hematopoietic cells of Macrobrachium rosenbergii [2], while virions observed in hepatopancreatic sinus and gills of Exopalaemon carinicauda measure approximately 150 nm [7]. In Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus monodon from Taiwanese outbreaks, negatively stained virions exhibited a diameter of 112 ± 2 nm, though this smaller measurement likely reflects the effects of negative staining preparation versus the larger dimensions observed in thin-section TEM of intact virions within cellular matrices [13]. The icosahedral symmetry is a hallmark of the Iridoviridae family, and DIV1 conforms to this archetype, with the capsid composed of multiple protein layers surrounding a dense core containing the viral genome [19, 21].

The structural integrity of the virion is maintained by a complex arrangement of capsid proteins, with the major capsid protein (MCP) serving as the primary structural component [31, 36, 38]. The MCP of DIV1 is a highly conserved protein; sequence alignment of complete MCP open reading frames (ORFs) from geographically distinct isolates, including SHIV 20141215 from China, CQIV CN01 from Cherax quadricarinatus, and isolate 20190514 from P. vannamei, demonstrates 100% identity at the amino acid level [18], indicating strong evolutionary pressure to maintain capsid structure and function. This conservation across isolates from diverse hosts and regions underscores the structural stability of the virion [18, 25].

The iridescent property implied by the virus's name is a characteristic feature of many iridovirids, resulting from the paracrystalline arrangement of virions within infected cells that produces structural coloration via Bragg diffraction of light [21]. In DIV1 infections, the iridescence is not always clinically apparent but can be observed under appropriate illumination in heavily infected tissues, particularly in hematopoietic organs and lymphoid organs where massive viral replication occurs [2, 18, 35].

Structural Proteome: Composition and Functional Architecture

The first comprehensive proteomic analysis of DIV1 virions, conducted by You et al. (2022), identified 30 virus-encoded structural proteins through liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) of purified virions separated by SDS-PAGE [19]. Of these, 23 proteins were confirmed as components of mature virions by Western blotting using specific antibodies [19]. This proteomic dissection revealed several functionally important classes of proteins:

Transmembrane domain-containing proteins: Six of the identified structural proteins are predicted to contain transmembrane domains [19]. These proteins are likely embedded within the internal lipid membrane that is characteristic of iridovirids, lying immediately beneath the icosahedral capsid. This internal membrane, derived from host cell membranes during viral assembly, is essential for virion stability and entry processes [19, 24].

Proteins containing RGD motifs: Three structural proteins possess Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) integrin-binding motifs [19]. RGD motifs are well-established mediators of cell attachment and entry for numerous viruses, facilitating interactions with host cell surface integrins. The presence of RGD motifs in DIV1 structural proteins suggests that integrin-mediated adhesion may play a role in viral tropism and internalization, although direct experimental confirmation in DIV1 remains to be demonstrated [19].

Homologs of functionally characterized proteins: Nine of the identified structural proteins show significant homology to functionally characterized proteins from other iridovirids, particularly those involved in capsid assembly, DNA packaging, and membrane association [19]. Among these, the major capsid protein (MCP) is the most abundant component, representing the primary building block of the icosahedral capsid [31, 36, 38]. The MCP gene is also the primary target for molecular diagnostics, including TaqMan-based real-time PCR, SYBR Green I-based real-time PCR, recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays developed for DIV1 detection [5, 9-11, 15, 17, 20].

Envelope Protein 168L and Host Interaction

One of the most critical structural proteins is the envelope protein encoded by ORF 168L (DIV1-168L), which plays a pivotal role in virion entry [12]. DIV1-168L is a conserved membrane-associated protein that facilitates viral attachment and penetration into host cells. Yeast two-hybrid screening using a cDNA library derived from Litopenaeus vannamei gill tissue identified cuticle protein 8 (CP8) as a host interactor of 168L [12]. Co-immunoprecipitation assays confirmed this interaction, and fluorescence colocalization studies demonstrated that full-length CP8 and 168L colocalize in the cytoplasm of Sf9 insect cells [12]. Importantly, removal of the N-terminal signal peptide from CP8 abolished its cytoplasmic concentration, indicating that proper localization is dependent on this secretory signal [12]. The expression of CP8 is significantly downregulated during DIV1 infection, suggesting that the virus may exploit this interaction for entry while the host potentially downregulates the target to limit viral access [12]. CP8 is expressed in gill filament epithelium and epidermis, tissues that are primary sites of DIV1 replication and pathology [12, 18].

Genomic Organization and Architecture

DIV1 possesses a linear double-stranded DNA genome that is both large and complex, typical of members of the family Iridoviridae [3, 21]. The complete genome sequence of the highly pathogenic DIV1-ZH strain, obtained from M. rosenbergii, has a total length of 166,964 base pairs (bp) with a GC content of 34.56% [3]. This GC content is relatively low compared to some iridovirids but falls within the range observed for the family [3, 25]. The genome encodes a total of 176 open reading frames (ORFs), each presumed to represent a functional gene [3]. Comparative genomic analyses of four DIV1 isolates, two from crab hosts (Portunus trituberculatus and Marsupenaeus japonicus from polyculture ponds) and two from shrimp, reveal that the genome size is consistent across isolates, ranging from approximately 166 to 168 kbp, and that the overall genomic architecture is highly conserved [25]. Phylogenetic analyses based on the MCP gene confirm that DIV1 isolates from crab and shrimp share a common ancestor, indicating cross-species transmission events and the capacity of the virus to adapt to diverse decapod hosts [25].

The genome exhibits a typical iridovirid organization, with ORFs arranged in both forward and reverse orientations along the linear molecule [3]. The terminal regions of iridovirus genomes often contain repetitive sequences and are involved in DNA replication and packaging, although detailed characterization of the DIV1 genome termini remains incomplete. The high degree of sequence conservation among isolates from different geographic regions (China [3], Taiwan [13], and the Indian Ocean [26]) suggests that the virus is undergoing purifying selection, with strong constraints on genomic variation, particularly in structural and replicative genes [18, 25].

Functional Gene Content and Conserved Domains

Among the 176 predicted ORFs of DIV1-ZH, several encode proteins with well-established functions in viral replication, pathogenesis, and host interaction [3]:

Major Capsid Protein (MCP): As the most abundant structural protein, MCP is encoded by a highly conserved ORF that is essential for capsid assembly and stability [31, 36, 38]. The MCP gene is the target of numerous diagnostic assays due to its conservation [11, 17, 20]. Structural modeling and molecular docking studies of the DIV1 MCP have identified potential binding sites for repurposed antiviral compounds, including Chloroquine, Rimantadine, and CAP-1, suggesting that the capsid itself may be a viable therapeutic target [38].

ATPase (ORF 114R): The viral ATPase gene, located at ORF 114R (based on standard DIV1 genomic nomenclature), encodes a protein essential for DNA packaging and virion maturation [9, 23, 37]. The ATPase is a common target for molecular diagnostics due to its essential function and conservation across iridovirids [9, 23]. Nested PCR and RPA assays targeting the ATPase gene have demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, with detection limits as low as 1.37 × 10¹ copies per reaction [23, 37].

Envelope Protein 168L: As discussed above, this ORF encodes a membrane-associated protein critical for viral entry through interaction with host cuticle protein 8 [12]. The 168L protein is a key determinant of tissue tropism, particularly targeting gill and epidermal tissues where CP8 is abundant [12].

Proteins involved in immune evasion: The DIV1 genome encodes several proteins that modulate host immune responses, including factors that inhibit apoptosis, interfere with Toll and IMD signaling pathways, and suppress antimicrobial peptide production [3, 32, 33, 40]. For instance, DIV1 infection triggers a significant increase in hemocyte apoptosis, particularly in agranular cells (hyaline cells and prohemocytes), while simultaneously inducing differentiation trajectories that attempt to compensate for immune cell loss [30]. The virus also stabilizes hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) under normoxic conditions to transactivate host hexokinase genes, thereby hijacking host glycolytic metabolism to fuel viral replication [16].

Proteins mediating metabolic reprogramming: DIV1 orchestrates a Warburg-like metabolic shift in infected cells, upregulating glycolysis and lactate production while downregulating oxidative phosphorylation [16, 41]. The genome encodes factors that stabilize HIF-1α and transactivate glycolytic enzyme genes, including hexokinase (HK), triosephosphate isomerase (TPI), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) [16, 34, 41]. This metabolic reprogramming provides biosynthetic precursors and energy for viral replication, and targeting this pathway with inhibitors such as 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) reduces viral loads and improves survival [16].

Capsid Assembly and Morphogenesis

The assembly of DIV1 virions occurs within the cytoplasm of infected cells, primarily in hematopoietic tissue, lymphoid organ, hepatopancreatic sinus, and gill epithelium [2, 18, 35]. Electron microscopy reveals the presence of virogenic stromata, electron-dense, amorphous viral replication factories, where viral DNA replication and capsid assembly take place [2, 14, 18]. Nascent nucleocapsids bud from the virogenic stromata and acquire an internal lipid membrane derived from the host endoplasmic reticulum or Golgi apparatus [19, 24]. The mature icosahedral capsid is then assembled around the membrane-enclosed genome core [19]. Assembled virions are observed predominantly at the periphery of virogenic stromata, near cellular membranes, and are often arranged in paracrystalline arrays that produce the characteristic iridescence [7, 21].

Entry Mechanism and Uncoating

DIV1 enters host cells via caveola-mediated endocytosis, a process that is dependent on membrane cholesterol, dynamin activity, and microtubule-based trafficking [24]. Pharmacological inhibition studies using hematopoietic tissue cells of Cherax quadricarinatus demonstrated that clathrin-dependent endocytosis inhibitors (pitstop 2, chlorpromazine) do not suppress DIV1 infection, effectively ruling out clathrin-mediated entry [24]. In contrast, cholesterol depletion with methyl-β-cyclodextrin or nystatin significantly inhibited infection, and this inhibition was reversed by cholesterol replenishment, confirming the requirement for membrane cholesterol [24]. Caveolar inhibitors (phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate, genistein, wortmannin) and organelle pH neutralizers (NH₄Cl, bafilomycin A1) also blocked DIV1 entry, indicating that the process is both caveola-dependent and pH-dependent [24]. Fluorescence colocalization and pull-down assays confirmed that DIV1 associates with caveolin-1 during internalization [24]. Post-internalization, the virus traffics via microtubules to the Golgi apparatus, where uncoating and genome release occur in a low-pH environment [24]. This entry mechanism is distinct from that of white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), which utilizes clathrin-mediated endocytosis, highlighting the evolutionary divergence between these two major shrimp pathogens [24].

Genomic Stability and Implications for Diagnostics

The high degree of genomic and proteomic conservation among DIV1 isolates from diverse hosts and geographic regions has significant implications for diagnostic assay design and vaccine development [18, 25, 31]. All molecular detection methods, whether targeting the MCP gene [11, 17, 20], ATPase gene [9, 23, 37], or other conserved regions, rely on sequence stability to maintain sensitivity and specificity across strains. The 100% identity of MCP sequences across isolates from China [18], Taiwan [13], and the Indian Ocean [26] suggests that the capsid is under strong purifying selection, likely because structural constraints limit acceptable variation. This conservation simplifies diagnostic development but also raises questions about the potential for future emergence of antigenically variant strains that might escape immune detection or vaccine-induced protection [31, 38]. The structural and genomic characterization of DIV1 thus provides a foundation for understanding its pathogenesis, developing targeted antiviral strategies, and implementing effective biosecurity measures in global crustacean aquaculture.

Molecular Pathogenesis and Host-Virus Interactions

1. Viral Entry and Cellular Tropism: The Initial Stages of Infection

The pathogenic journey of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) begins with its interaction with the host cell surface, a process that dictates tissue tropism and the severity of subsequent disease. Detailed investigations into the entry mechanisms of DIV1 have elucidated a highly specific and evolutionarily conserved pathway. Unlike White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), which utilizes clathrin-mediated endocytosis, DIV1 has been demonstrated to enter hematopoietic tissue cells of Cherax quadricarinatus via caveola-mediated endocytosis [24]. This process is strictly dependent on membrane cholesterol, dynamin activity, and an intact microtubule cytoskeleton for trafficking to the Golgi apparatus [24]. The pH-dependent nature of this entry route, which is sensitive to neutralizers like NH4Cl and bafilomycin A1, highlights the critical role of the endosomal environment in uncoating and releasing the viral genome [24]. This discovery is pivotal, as it distinguishes DIV1's pathogenic strategy from other major decapod viruses and identifies specific host-derived targets (e.g., caveolin-1, dynamin) for potential therapeutic intervention.

The specificity of this entry mechanism is further refined by viral surface proteins. The conserved envelope protein DIV1-168L plays a non-redundant role in virion entry, and yeast two-hybrid screening has identified cuticle protein 8 (CP8) from Litopenaeus vannamei as a key interacting host factor [12]. The colocalization of CP8 with 168L in the cytoplasm of Sf9 cells and its expression in gill filament epithelium, a primary site of viral entry, suggests that CP8 may serve as a docking receptor or facilitate membrane fusion [12]. Interestingly, CP8 expression is significantly inhibited during DIV1 infection, hinting at a viral strategy to modulate host protein abundance to favor entry or evade host defenses [12]. Once inside, the viral genome is released, and replication commences primarily in the cytoplasm, where the major capsid protein (MCP) is synthesized. This protein is not only a structural component but also a key player in host interaction. Screening of a L. vannamei hemocyte cDNA library identified arginine kinase, sarcoplasmic calcium-binding protein, and 40S ribosomal protein S13 as MCP-interacting proteins, suggesting that DIV1 MCP may directly interfere with host energy metabolism and protein translation machinery to create a favorable environment for replication [36].

2. Host Immune Sensing and the Antiviral Signaling Cascade

Upon entry and replication, DIV1 triggers a robust but often dysregulated innate immune response. The host's first line of defense relies on pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) such as C-type lectins (CTLs), which are consistently upregulated in response to DIV1 infection across multiple species, including M. rosenbergii, M. nipponense, and C. quadricarinatus [8, 33, 43, 46]. This recognition event activates a complex signaling network. A landmark discovery in this context is the identification and characterization of the TNF-TNFR-TRAF6 signaling axis in L. vannamei as a central antiviral pathway [40]. This study demonstrated that both the ligand LvTNF and its receptor LvTNFR are transcriptionally upregulated following DIV1 infection. Silencing either gene results in a dramatic increase in viral replication and reduced shrimp survival, confirming their crucial protective role [40]. Mechanistically, this axis activates the NF-κB homolog LvDorsal, promoting its nuclear translocation and the subsequent expression of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) [40]. This pathway is also functionally linked to the Toll signaling pathway, as evidenced by the upregulation of toll, myd88, and irf4 genes in prawns fed with dietary astaxanthin, which enhanced DIV1 resistance [42]. The activation of NF-κB (Relish/Dorsal) and JAK-STAT pathways is a hallmark of the early host response to DIV1, with key effectors like STAT, Dorsal, and Relish showing significant differential expression in transcriptomic analyses [33, 43, 46].

However, the host response is not solely transcriptional. A sophisticated subpopulation-specific apoptotic response has been uncovered in hemocytes of M. rosenbergii [30]. Flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequencing revealed that DIV1 infection triggers a significant increase in apoptosis, which is most pronounced in agranular cells (hyaline cells and prohemocytes). This apoptotic peak at 24 hours post-infection (hpi) is driven by the activation of p53 signaling, DNA repair, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) pathways [30]. This selective apoptosis appears to be an antiviral strategy to eliminate the primary sites of viral replication. Paradoxically, the host also demonstrates a remarkable degree of lineage plasticity; RNA velocity analysis indicated that semi-granular cells (SGCs) and prohemocytes differentiate toward hyaline cells, suggesting a compensatory mechanism to replenish the depleted hemocyte population to maintain immune competence during the acute phase of infection [30]. This dynamic interplay between cell death and renewal is a central feature of DIV1 pathogenesis.

3. Metabolic Hijacking: The Warburg Effect as a Pathogenic Strategy

Perhaps the most striking aspect of DIV1-host interaction is its ability to subvert central metabolic pathways to fuel its own replication, a strategy akin to the Warburg effect observed in cancer cells and other viral infections. Multi-omics studies have consistently demonstrated that DIV1 induces a profound shift in host metabolism towards aerobic glycolysis. In L. vannamei, transcriptomic analysis revealed a significant upregulation of the Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis pathway, coupled with increased accumulation of glycolytic-related metabolites in the hemolymph [41]. Critically, inhibition of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity, either through RNA interference or chemical inhibitors, reduced lactate production and significantly protected shrimp from DIV1 infection, directly demonstrating that active glycolysis is essential for viral pathogenesis [41].

The master regulator of this metabolic reprogramming has been identified as hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) [16]. In M. rosenbergii, DIV1 infection stabilizes HIF-1α under normoxic conditions, which then transactivates the gene encoding hexokinase (MrHK) via three hypoxia-response elements (HREs) in its promoter [16]. Hexokinase, the first enzyme in glycolysis, acts as a central metabolic hub. The temporal analysis of DIV1 infection confirmed stage-specific induction of MrHK and synchronized activation of downstream glycolytic enzymes, representing a "full-pathway hijacking" [16]. Targeting this axis with the hexokinase inhibitor 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) reduced viral copies and improved survival rates from 21.21% to 43.33% [16]. Silencing MrHIF-1α similarly attenuated MrHK expression and improved survival, cementing the HIF-1α-HK axis as a critical host dependency factor for DIV1 [16].

This metabolic reprogramming is not an isolated event but is closely linked to secondary bacterial infections and dysbiosis. In M. japonicus, the Warburg effect induced by DIV1 is synergized by the expansion of pathogenic bacteria like Vibrio and Photobacterium in the gut [45]. The resulting metabolic reprogramming provides the necessary energy and biosynthetic precursors (e.g., nucleotides, amino acids) for rapid viral replication [45]. Furthermore, metabolic pathways such as Ascorbate and aldarate metabolism and Arachidonic acid metabolism are significantly altered in the host's intestine, indicating that DIV1's influence extends beyond the hemolymph to the gut microbiome, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of metabolic subversion and immune dysfunction [32, 44].

4. Cellular Damage, Oxidative Stress, and Immune Evasion

The culmination of these molecular interactions is extensive cellular damage and the subversion of immune effector mechanisms. Histopathological analyses consistently reveal that DIV1 infection causes eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusions, nuclear pyknosis, and parenchymal necrosis, particularly in hematopoietic tissue (HPT), gills, and hepatopancreas [2, 3, 8, 18]. The virus targets the lymphoid organ (LO) as a prime site of replication, producing lesions that are easily identifiable for diagnostics, especially in penaeid shrimp [18, 35]. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) confirms the presence of icosahedral viral particles and virogenic stromata within the cytoplasm of infected cells, particularly in hematopoietic cells and hemocytes [2, 3, 18].

To counteract host defenses, DIV1 employs a multifaceted immune evasion strategy. One key mechanism is the inhibition of key effector enzymes. Studies in M. japonicus demonstrated that DIV1 infection significantly suppresses the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), lysozyme, and phenoloxidase (PO) [33]. This suppression cripples the host's oxidative burst and antimicrobial defenses. The importance of the antioxidant system is underscored by studies showing that dietary astaxanthin, a potent antioxidant, can enhance SOD and CAT activities, reduce hepatopancreatic apoptosis, and improve survival by bolstering the MyD88-dependent Toll-signaling pathway [42]. Similarly, the traditional Chinese medicine formula Yinqiao Banlangen San is believed to exert its protective effects by inhibiting DIV1 replication through the enhancement of SOD, POD, ACP, and AKP activities [47].

Furthermore, DIV1-induced metabolic reprogramming can be seen as an immune evasion tactic. By redirecting glucose towards lactate production via glycolysis, the virus may create an acidic microenvironment that inhibits the activity of immune cells and lysosomal enzymes. The expansion of Vibrio spp. in the gut following DIV1 infection also contributes to immune evasion; correlation analysis showed that these pathogenic bacteria can increase the expression of NF-κB inhibitors like cactus-like and Tollip, which may suppress the Toll-like receptor (TLR)-mediated immune response, thereby allowing further viral replication [32]. This complex interplay highlights that DIV1 not only evades the host immune system but actively manipulates it to promote a state of immune paralysis, facilitating co-infections and worsening disease outcome.

Clinical Signs and Histopathology of DIV1 Infection

The clinical manifestation and histopathological landscape of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) infection present a constellation of pathognomonic features that are remarkably consistent across its expanding host range, yet exhibit species-specific nuances critical for differential diagnosis. As a pathogen listed by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and classified as a Class II animal pandemic disease in China [14, 22], understanding the gross pathology and tissue-level damage is fundamental to both field surveillance and mechanistic research. The clinical trajectory of DIV1 is characterized by a rapid, often peracute to acute course, with mortality rates approaching 100% in susceptible populations under experimental and natural conditions [1, 2, 13]. However, the expressivity of these signs is modulated by host species, route of exposure, viral dose, and the presence of co-infections [4, 50].

Species-Specific Gross Pathological Manifestations

The most frequently reported and visually striking clinical sign in Macrobrachium rosenbergii is the "white head" or "white triangle" appearance at the rostrum base [2, 3, 27]. This phenomenon, which has become a colloquial diagnostic hallmark in Southeast Asian aquaculture, is hypothesized to result from the massive accumulation of viral particles or the lysis of infected hematopoietic cells within the cephalothoracic region, altering the translucent quality of the cuticle. Concurrently, infected giant freshwater prawns exhibit pronounced lethargy, anorexia, and a visibly empty gut and stomach, a sign of digestive tract paralysis or cessation of feeding [2, 3, 49]. As the disease progresses towards a terminal phase (typically 72–120 hours post-infection), a notable development is the appearance of melanized black lesions on the exoskeleton, particularly on the appendages and carapace [49]. This melanization is a direct consequence of the prophenoloxidase (proPO) system activation, a critical humoral immune response in crustaceans, suggesting a frantic but ultimately futile attempt to encapsulate and neutralize the systemic infection.

In penaeid shrimp, particularly Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus japonicus, the clinical picture differs slightly but is equally diagnostic. The most consistent signs include a conspicuous reddish body coloration (erythrism), hepatopancreatic atrophy accompanied by pronounced color fading (from dark brown to pale or whitish), and an empty gastrointestinal tract [14, 18]. Farmers often report "covert mortality" where animals die without exhibiting dramatic surface lesions. A critical finding in penaeids is the swollen and whitish appearance of the lymphoid organ (LO), visible upon dissection as a distinct, enlarged, and pale mass [14, 35]. This is a vital diagnostic clue, as the LO is a prime target organ in these species. The shell often presents with enlarged and deepened pigmentation spots, contributing to the "soft shell" or roughened texture observed in moribund animals [18, 27]. For Exopalaemon carinicauda, weakness, gut emptiness and a pale hepatopancreas are the dominant clinical signs [7], while in Macrobrachium nipponense, reddening of the hepatopancreas and gills is a reported symptom [8]. In contrast, mud crabs (Scylla paramamosain) present with lethargy and loss of vitality, with oral exposure leading to a slower, more progressive disease course compared to the acute mortality seen with injection, highlighting the critical role of viral entry kinetics [4].

Histopathological Hallmarks: The Signature of DIV1

The histopathological changes induced by DIV1 are profound and form the definitive basis for diagnosis, complementing molecular detection methods. The cardinal histopathological lesion across all susceptible species is the presence of darkly eosinophilic, cytoplasmic inclusions within infected cells [2-4, 7, 18]. These inclusions represent virogenic stromata, sites of viral replication and assembly, within the cytoplasm of permissive cells. They are often accompanied by nuclear pyknosis (irreversible condensation of chromatin in the nucleus of a dying cell) and, in advanced lesions, karyorrhexis (fragmentation of the nucleus) [2, 3, 8].

Hematopoietic Tissue (HPT) and Hemocytes: The HPT is unequivocally the most severely affected tissue and is considered the primary target of DIV1 [2, 14, 35]. In histological sections, the HPT exhibits a loss of normal architecture, replaced by sheets of pyknotic nuclei and cells containing the characteristic eosinophilic inclusions. This damage explains the profound immunosuppression observed in terminal stages, as the production of new hemocytes is crippled. Infection of circulating hemocytes is also extensive, leading to a significant reduction in total hemocyte count (THC) and functional impairment of phagocytosis and encapsulation [30, 49]. The subpopulation-specific apoptotic response is dramatic, with agranular cells (hyaline cells and prohemocytes) showing the highest rates of apoptosis, peaking at 24 hours post-infection [30]. This induces a compensatory hematopoietic shift, with semi-granular cells and prohemocytes differentiating towards hyaline cells to maintain immune competence, a process revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing [30].

Lymphoid Organ (LO) and Hepatopancreas: For penaeid shrimp, the LO harbors lesions that are easily identifiable even at low magnification (10x objective), making it a highly practical screening target in diagnostic histopathology [35]. The lesions are characterized by basophilic (rather than eosinophilic) cytoplasmic inclusions in the stromal cells of the LO tubules, accompanied by massive necrosis and disorganization of the tubule matrix [14, 35]. While not pathognomonic on their own for DIV1 (as they can occur in other infections), their presence is highly suggestive when combined with HPT lesions. The hepatopancreas (HP) is a major site of metabolic disruption and pathology. Histologically, one observes parenchymal necrosis, degeneration and sloughing of the tubular epithelial cells (R-, F-, and B-cells), eosinophilic inclusions in the interstitial sinus spaces, and immune cell infiltration (hemocytic aggregation) around necrotic tubules [3, 4, 18, 49]. This severe tubular atrophy is the histological correlate of the pale, atrophied HP seen grossly and is linked to the profound metabolic derangement (e.g., Warburg-like glycolysis) that DIV1 induces to fuel its replication [3, 16].

Gills and Cuticular Epithelium: The gills show characteristic lesions, including eosinophilic inclusions in pillar cells and epithelial cells, leading to edema, hemocytic congestion in the filament sinuses, and lamellar fusion [2, 7, 14]. This damage underlies the respiratory distress and likely contributes to the rapid mortality. The cuticular epithelium is another consistent target, where pyknotic cells and viral inclusions are frequently observed, potentially interfering with ecdysis (molting) and shell formation [7, 12].

Pathogenesis and Tissue Tropism: The Viral Load Distribution

The extensive tissue damage is a direct function of the massive viral load and broad tissue tropism of DIV1. Quantitative detection has revealed that the hematopoietic tissue carries the highest DIV1 load, with a relative abundance of 25.4 ± 16.9% in naturally infected M. rosenbergii, followed by the hemocytes, gills, and hepatopancreas [2]. In P. vannamei, the viral load in the LO and HPT can reach astronomical levels, explaining the rapid cytopathic effect [35]. In mud crabs, the hepatopancreas, gonads, and gills harbor high viral loads, with the gonadal infection raising significant concerns about vertical transmission and impacts on reproductive success [4]. The infection of gonadal tissue has been confirmed by in situ ISDL, showing dense viral signals in developing oocytes and follicular cells [4].

At the ultrastructural level, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) confirms the presence of non-enveloped, icosahedral viral particles approximately 150–158 nm in diameter [2, 7, 13]. These virions are found in abundance within the cytoplasm, often arranged in paracrystalline arrays near the cellular membrane, closely associated with the virogenic stromata [7, 24]. The entry mechanism involves caveola-mediated endocytosis, a specific, cholesterol- and dynamin-dependent pathway that distinguishes DIV1 from other crustacean pathogens like WSSV [24]. This sophisticated entry mechanism allows the virus to traffic to the Golgi apparatus, a safe haven for replication and assembly [24]. The budding of enveloped virions from the plasma membrane is also observed, providing a mechanism for cell-to-cell spread and immune evasion [2].

Host Response and Secondary Consequences

The host's attempt to control the infection is evident in the histopathology. The intense immune cell infiltration into the hepatopancreas and gills represents an efflux of hemocytes to sites of damage [3]. However, the virus simultaneously manipulates the host’s metabolism. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) is stabilized under normoxic conditions, driving a Warburg-like glycolytic reprogramming that shunts glucose towards lactate production via the upregulation of hexokinase (HK), providing the energy and biosynthetic precursors needed for viral replication [16, 41]. This metabolic hijacking is a direct cause of hepatopancreatic and intestinal histopathology.

Furthermore, the severe damage to the intestinal mucosa observed in Marsupenaeus japonicus and M. rosenbergii, including epithelial sloughing, goblet cell depletion, and disruption of intercellular tight junctions, leads to a dysbiotic intestinal microbiota [32, 45, 48]. This is characterized by a collapse of beneficial bacterial populations (Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes) and a dramatic expansion of opportunistic pathogens like Vibrio and Photobacterium, resulting in a fulminant secondary bacterial infection that synergizes with DIV1 to exacerbate mortality and tissue necrosis [32, 45]. The clinical signs of terminal DIV1, therefore, represent the combined effect of direct viral cytolysis, host metabolic exhaustion, immune paralysis, and polymicrobial sepsis.

Epidemiology: Host Range, Transmission, and Geographic Distribution

Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) represents a paradigm-shifting pathogen in crustacean virology, exhibiting a remarkably broad host range that spans multiple infraorders of decapod crustaceans, coupled with a rapidly expanding geographic distribution that has elevated it to a pathogen of global concern. The virus, classified as the sole member of the genus Decapodiridovirus within the family Iridoviridae, has demonstrated an alarming capacity to infect both marine and freshwater species, including penaeid shrimp, palaemonid prawns, astacid crayfish, and portunid crabs [2, 4, 7, 14, 21, 25]. This expansive host tropism, combined with its high pathogenicity and environmental stability, positions DIV1 as one of the most significant emerging threats to global crustacean aquaculture, warranting its inclusion in the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) list of notifiable diseases and its classification as a Class II animal pandemic disease in China [14, 22, 28].

Host Range: A Comprehensive Compendium of Susceptible Species

The host range of DIV1 has expanded dramatically since its initial discovery, with experimental and natural infections now confirmed across at least 15 decapod species and several non-decapod vectors [27, 39]. The virus exhibits a striking capacity to infect species across diverse taxonomic groups, including penaeid shrimp (Penaeus vannamei, Penaeus monodon, Penaeus japonicus, Penaeus chinensis, Fenneropenaeus merguiensis, Metapenaeus ensis), palaemonid prawns (Macrobrachium rosenbergii, Macrobrachium nipponense, Exopalaemon carinicauda), astacid crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus, Procambarus clarkii), and brachyuran crabs (Scylla paramamosain, Portunus trituberculatus) [2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, 25, 26, 32, 33, 46, 52]. This extraordinary breadth of host susceptibility is unprecedented among crustacean viruses and suggests that DIV1 possesses highly conserved entry mechanisms capable of exploiting receptors common to diverse decapod lineages.

Among penaeid shrimp, Penaeus vannamei (whiteleg shrimp) has emerged as the most extensively studied and economically impacted host. Natural outbreaks in P. vannamei farms have resulted in cumulative mortalities approaching 100%, with clinical signs including hepatopancreatic atrophy, color fading, empty stomach and guts, obvious reddish body coloration, enlarged and deepened pigmentation spots on the shell, and covert mortality [13, 18]. The susceptibility of Penaeus monodon (black tiger shrimp) to natural DIV1 infection was first documented in Taiwan in 2020, where the virus caused mild mortality (approximately 20%) in cultured populations, suggesting species-specific differences in virulence [13]. Critically, P. monodon broodstock captured from the Indian Ocean have tested positive for DIV1 through PCR screening, raising significant concerns about the potential for wild populations to serve as reservoirs for viral introduction into hatchery systems [26]. Penaeus japonicus (kuruma shrimp) has been experimentally confirmed as a susceptible host, with intramuscular and per os challenges resulting in nearly 100% mortality and viral loads reaching 10⁹ copies/μg DNA [14]. Surveillance of farmed P. japonicus across five coastal provinces in China revealed a DIV1 detection rate of 5.3% (9/157) in 2022, indicating ongoing circulation in cultured populations [14].

The susceptibility of Penaeus chinensis (Chinese white shrimp) warrants particular attention due to its nuanced infection dynamics. Experimental studies have demonstrated that intramuscular injection of DIV1 induces 100% mortality within five days post-infection, with characteristic clinical signs and high viral loads [1]. However, per os challenge, the route that mimics natural transmission, resulted in only transient, low-level infection that was cleared by nine days post-infection, leading researchers to conclude that P. chinensis is "not considered a susceptible host" but rather exhibits susceptibility "nearing a critical threshold" [1]. This finding has profound epidemiological implications, suggesting that environmental stressors, co-infections, or viral dose may determine whether P. chinensis populations experience epizootics or remain refractory to infection. The detection of DIV1 in wild P. chinensis from the Yellow Sea, often in co-infection with other pathogens such as infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHHNV) and yellow head virus genotype 8 (YHV-8), further complicates the epidemiological picture and underscores the need for continuous surveillance [55].

Fenneropenaeus merguiensis (banana shrimp) and Metapenaeus ensis (greasyback shrimp) have been confirmed as susceptible hosts through experimental infection and molecular detection [32, 52]. For M. ensis, the lethal concentration 50 (LC50) of DIV1 was determined, establishing this species as a suitable model for studying host-microbiota interactions during DIV1 infection [32]. Marsupenaeus japonicus (kuruma shrimp) has also been demonstrated to support DIV1 replication, with transcriptomic analyses revealing that the virus inhibits key immune enzymes including superoxide dismutase, catalase, lysozyme, and phenoloxidase as a mechanism of immune evasion [33].

The palaemonid prawns represent a particularly vulnerable group, with Macrobrachium rosenbergii (giant freshwater prawn) experiencing severe epizootics characterized by the pathognomonic "white head" sign, a white triangular region at the rostrum base [2, 3]. Natural infections in M. rosenbergii farms in China have resulted in high mortality, with quantitative detection revealing that hematopoietic tissue harbors the highest viral load (relative abundance of 25.4 ± 16.9%), while hepatopancreas and muscle contain the lowest loads (2.44 ± 1.24% and 2.44 ± 2.16%, respectively) [2]. The 50% lethal dose (LD50) of a highly pathogenic strain (DIV1-ZH) for M. rosenbergii at 72 hours post-infection was estimated at 1.30 × 10⁸ copies/mL, accompanied by characteristic clinical signs including the white triangle at the rostrum base and gut emptiness [3]. Macrobrachium nipponense (oriental river prawn) has been confirmed as highly susceptible, with an LD50 of 2.14 × 10⁴ copies/mL and rapid viral replication in hemocytes, gills, and hepatopancreas [8]. Exopalaemon carinicauda (ridgetail white prawn) exhibits intermediate susceptibility, with cumulative mortalities of 42.5% and 70.8% for per os and intramuscular challenge, respectively, suggesting some degree of tolerance to natural infection routes [7].

Among freshwater crayfish, Cherax quadricarinatus (redclaw crayfish) has been extensively studied as both a natural host and an experimental model for DIV1 pathogenesis. Natural infections in farmed C. quadricarinatus have been confirmed through nested PCR and histopathological examination, with transcriptomic analyses revealing significant impacts on hepatopancreatic function, including the upregulation of vitellogenin genes and alterations in lipid metabolism [46, 53]. The virus has been shown to enter C. quadricarinatus hematopoietic cells via caveola-mediated endocytosis in a pH-dependent manner, a mechanism that distinguishes DIV1 from other iridovirids and decapod pathogens such as white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) [24]. Procambarus clarkii (red swamp crayfish) has also been identified as a susceptible species, with natural infections detected in samples from farms experiencing white head syndrome [2].

The confirmation of Scylla paramamosain (green mud crab) as a susceptible host represents a significant expansion of the known host range into brachyuran crustaceans [4]. Experimental infections demonstrated that DIV1 can infect and induce disease through both intramuscular injection and oral routes, with high mortality in the high-dose injection group and slower disease progression following oral exposure. Quantitative PCR analysis revealed high viral loads in hepatopancreas, gonads, and gills, with in situ detection confirming widespread distribution across various tissues, including the gonads, suggesting potential implications for reproductive transmission [4]. Portunus trituberculatus (swimming crab) has also been found positive for DIV1 in polyculture ponds with M. japonicus, indicating that the virus can circulate between shrimp and crab species in integrated farming systems [25].

Beyond the primary decapod hosts, DIV1 has been detected in several non-decapod species that may serve as mechanical vectors or environmental reservoirs. These include the golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata), the jumping spider (Plexippus paykulli), polychaete worms, and rotifers [18, 27]. The detection of DIV1 in polychaetes is particularly concerning given their common use as live feed in shrimp hatcheries, potentially providing a route for viral introduction into otherwise biosecure facilities [22]. The role of these non-decapod species in the epidemiology of DIV1 requires further investigation, but their presence in aquaculture environments suggests multiple pathways for viral persistence and transmission.

Transmission Dynamics: Routes, Mechanisms, and Environmental Persistence

The transmission of DIV1 occurs through multiple routes, with horizontal transmission via waterborne exposure and cannibalism of infected individuals representing the primary mechanisms in aquaculture settings. Experimental studies have consistently demonstrated that intramuscular injection, an invasive route that bypasses natural barriers, results in rapid disease progression and near-100% mortality across susceptible species [1, 4, 7, 14]. In contrast, per os challenge, which mimics natural feeding behavior, typically results in lower mortality rates, delayed disease onset, and, in some cases, viral clearance [1, 4, 7]. This differential susceptibility based on exposure route has critical implications for understanding natural transmission dynamics and for designing effective biosecurity measures.

The oral route of transmission is particularly relevant in aquaculture settings where cannibalism of moribund or dead individuals is common. Studies in S. paramamosain demonstrated that oral exposure led to slower disease progression and lower mortality compared to injection, but still resulted in productive infection with viral replication in multiple tissues [4]. Similarly, E. carinicauda showed some degree of tolerance to per os challenge, with lower cumulative mortality compared to injection [7]. The ability of DIV1 to establish infection through the oral route underscores the importance of prompt removal of dead and dying individuals from culture systems to interrupt transmission cycles.

Waterborne transmission represents another critical pathway, with the virus capable of persisting in aquatic environments for extended periods. Studies on the environmental stability of DIV1 have revealed that the virus can remain infectious at room temperature for more than 168 hours (7 days) and at ultralow temperatures (−80°C) for more than 8 years [51]. This remarkable environmental persistence facilitates both direct waterborne transmission within culture systems and potential long-distance transport via water currents, contaminated equipment, or live animal movements. The virus is inactivated by heat treatment at 56°C for 30 minutes, 60°C for 15 minutes, or 70°C for 1 minute, parameters that are less stringent than the current WOAH recommendation of 80°C for 30 minutes, suggesting that existing heat treatment protocols may be overly conservative [51].

Chemical inactivation studies have provided additional insights into transmission control. DIV1 loses infectivity when exposed to strong brine (3 mol/L NaCl for 1 hour), pH levels below 3.1 or above 9.6, and common disinfectants including Triton X-100 and 1% formaldehyde [54]. In vitro studies have demonstrated that calcium hypochlorite (16.25-130 ppm), hydrogen peroxide (8.75-70 ppm), povidone iodine (3-24 ppm), benzalkonium chloride (20-160 ppm), and formalin (25-200 ppm) can effectively inactivate DIV1 particles within 24 hours of exposure [49]. These findings provide practical guidance for the development of disinfection protocols for hatcheries, grow-out ponds, and processing facilities.

The potential for vertical transmission remains an area of active investigation. The detection of DIV1 in gonadal tissues of infected S. paramamosain through in situ hybridization suggests that the virus may be capable of infecting reproductive tissues, raising concerns about potential transmission from broodstock to offspring [4]. However, definitive evidence for vertical transmission, such as detection of the virus in gametes or early life stages, has not yet been reported. The presence of DIV1 in wild-caught P. monodon broodstock from the Indian Ocean further emphasizes the need for rigorous screening of broodstock populations to prevent introduction into hatchery systems [26].

Co-infection dynamics play a significant role in DIV1 transmission and pathogenesis. A particularly intriguing finding is that infection with infectious precocious virus (IPV) can suppress DIV1 replication in M. rosenbergii, resulting in significantly lower mortality, weaker histopathological changes, and reduced DIV1 loading compared to single infections [50]. This antagonistic interaction between viruses has important implications for disease management and suggests that the microbial community context may influence DIV1 transmission dynamics. Conversely, DIV1 infection has been shown to increase the abundance of pathogenic bacteria such as Vibrio and Photobacterium in the intestinal microbiota, thereby increasing the risk of secondary bacterial infections and potentially enhancing overall disease severity [32, 45].

Geographic Distribution: From Emergence to Global Threat

The geographic distribution of DIV1 has expanded rapidly since its initial discovery, transitioning from a localized pathogen in China to a transboundary threat with confirmed presence in multiple Asian countries and potential for global dissemination. The virus was first identified in China in 2014 from diseased Cherax quadricarinatus and Penaeus vannamei, with subsequent retrospective analyses suggesting that it may have been circulating in Chinese aquaculture systems for several years prior to its formal description [21, 25]. Since then, DIV1 has been confirmed in Taiwan (2020), Thailand, and the Indian Ocean region, with import risk analyses indicating high potential for introduction into additional countries [13, 22, 26, 27].

In China, DIV1 has been detected across multiple provinces, reflecting its widespread distribution in both marine and freshwater aquaculture systems. Surveillance studies have documented the virus in shrimp farming regions including Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shandong, Fujian, Hainan, and Zhejiang provinces [2, 18, 56]. A comprehensive survey using a triple Eva Green real-time PCR assay on 190 clinical samples from Shandong, Jiangsu, Sichuan, Guangdong, and Hainan provinces revealed a DIV1 positive rate of 44.2%, indicating a high prevalence in cultured shrimp populations [56]. The detection of DIV1 in wild P. chinensis from the Yellow Sea further suggests that the virus has become established in natural ecosystems, potentially serving as a reservoir for recurrent introductions into aquaculture facilities [55].

The emergence of DIV1 in Taiwan in 2020 marked the first confirmed outbreak outside of mainland China. Diagnostic PCR and phylogenetic analysis of DIV1 isolates from two whiteleg shrimp farms and one black tiger shrimp farm in northern Taiwan revealed 100% nucleotide sequence identity with Chinese isolates, suggesting a common origin [13]. The virus caused mild mortality (20%) in cultured P. monodon but resulted in 100% mortality in P. vannamei, mirroring the species-specific virulence patterns observed in China [13]. This outbreak prompted enhanced surveillance and quarantine measures in Taiwan and neighboring countries.

The detection of DIV1 in P. monodon broodstock captured from the Indian Ocean represents a significant expansion of the known geographic range and raises concerns about the virus's presence in wild populations across Southeast Asia [26]. While the source of infection in these wild-caught individuals remains unclear, the finding suggests that DIV1 may be more widely distributed than currently recognized, potentially circulating in marine ecosystems beyond the immediate vicinity of aquaculture operations. The Indian Ocean detection also highlights the risk of international spread through the trade of live broodstock and post-larvae, as asymptomatic carriers may introduce the virus into previously unaffected regions.

Import risk analyses conducted by South Korea have classified DIV1 as a pathogen with high risk of entry, leading to the implementation of emergency quarantine measures since 2020 [22]. The analysis identified China, Taiwan, and Thailand as major sources of imported decapods and determined that current quarantine protocols for human consumption products may be insufficient to prevent introduction. Critically, the analysis highlighted that prawns and polychaetes intended for animal feed or bait are not currently subject to quarantine, representing a significant gap in biosecurity [22]. The identification of two crab species and two crayfish species as potentially susceptible but unregulated further underscores the need for comprehensive risk management strategies.

Surveillance in other Asian countries has yielded mixed results. Studies in India have not yet detected DIV1 in cultured P. vannamei from Karnataka, where screening of 91 samples revealed only WSSV and Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) infections [57]. However, the absence of detection does not confirm absence of the virus, particularly given the limited geographic scope and sample size of available surveys. The potential for DIV1 to emerge in India, which is a major shrimp-producing nation, represents a significant concern for global aquaculture biosecurity.

The international trade in live crustaceans, frozen products, and aquaculture feed ingredients provides multiple pathways for the geographic expansion of DIV1. The virus's ability to remain infectious at room temperature for over 168 hours and at −80°C for over 8 years means that frozen shrimp products could serve as vehicles for long-distance transport [51]. The less stringent heat inactivation parameters identified in recent studies (56°C for 30 minutes) compared to current WOAH recommendations (80°C for 30 minutes) suggest that existing processing protocols may be overly conservative but also highlight the need for standardized, validated inactivation procedures for international trade [51].

The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has recognized the significance of DIV1 by including it in the Quarterly Aquatic Animal Disease Report (QAAD) of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) and listing it as a notifiable disease [14, 22]. China has classified DIV1 as a Class II animal pandemic disease, requiring mandatory reporting and implementation of control measures [14]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has also highlighted DIV1 as an emerging threat to global food security, given the importance of crustacean aquaculture in providing protein and livelihoods

Disease Management and Control Strategies for Decapod Iridescent Virus 1

The comprehensive management and control of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) necessitates a multi-faceted, integrated strategy that spans from pre-emptive biosecurity and advanced surveillance to therapeutic interventions and selective breeding programs. As an emerging pathogen designated by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and classified as a Class II animal pandemic disease in China, DIV1 presents unique challenges due to its broad host range, environmental persistence, and the absence of a commercially available vaccine [14, 22]. The following sections delineate a hierarchical framework for disease management, drawing upon the latest experimental evidence to propose actionable strategies for the global crustacean aquaculture industry.

### Diagnostic Surveillance and Early Detection: The Cornerstone of Control

The foundation of any effective disease management program is the capacity for rapid, sensitive, and specific pathogen detection. For DIV1, a suite of molecular tools has been developed, each with distinct advantages for different surveillance contexts. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR), targeting the major capsid protein (MCP) or ATPase genes, remains the gold standard for high-throughput laboratory confirmation, with sensitivities reaching as low as 1.2 copies per reaction [11]. A SYBR Green I-based qPCR has also been validated, offering a cost-effective alternative with a limit of detection of 62 copies/µL and a broad dynamic range [17]. Furthermore, a highly sensitive TaqMan probe-based method is recommended for quantifying viral loads in different tissues, which is critical for understanding pathogenesis and transmission risk [11].

However, for field-deployable, point-of-care diagnostics, isothermal amplification techniques are transformative. Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) can be performed at a constant temperature of 37-39°C within 15-20 minutes, with a sensitivity of 10-200 copies per reaction, and is visually interpretable when combined with lateral flow strips (LFS) [5, 10, 15, 37]. This RPA-LFS method is particularly valuable for on-site screening in farms lacking sophisticated laboratory infrastructure. Similarly, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) provides a rapid alternative (40 minutes at 63°C) that can be coupled with visual dyes or lateral flow devices for easy interpretation, achieving a diagnostic sensitivity of 88% compared to conventional PCR [9, 60, 61]. The development of a microfluidic LAMP chip capable of simultaneously detecting DIV1, White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV), and Enterocytozoon hepatopenaei (EHP) represents a significant leap forward for syndromic surveillance, allowing for the differential diagnosis of co-infections that are common in intensive farming systems [61]. For high-throughput epidemiological surveys, multiplex real-time PCR assays based on EvaGreen melting curve analysis now enable the simultaneous detection of DIV1 alongside other WOAH-listed pathogens like WSSV, IHHNV, and AHPND-causing Vibrio, drastically reducing the time and cost of surveillance [28, 56]. The incorporation of innovative technologies, such as living magnetotactic bacterial microrobots displaying CRISPR/Cas12a systems, demonstrates the future potential for ultra-sensitive, automated on-site detection with limits as low as 8 copies/µL [29].

### Biosecurity and Inactivation Protocols: Breaking the Transmission Cycle

DIV1 exhibits considerable environmental tenacity, which dictates the stringency of biosecurity protocols. The virus can remain infectious at room temperature for over 168 hours and at -80°C for more than eight years, posing a risk of long-distance transport via frozen commodity products [51]. Therefore, robust inactivation protocols are paramount. Heat treatment studies have established that DIV1 is effectively inactivated at 56°C for 30 minutes, 60°C for 15 minutes, or 70°C for just 1 minute; these parameters are significantly less stringent than the current WOAH recommendation of 80°C for 30 minutes, offering a potentially more energy-efficient standard for processing of feed and waste [51]. Chemical inactivation is equally critical. DIV1 loses infectivity within one hour when exposed to strong brine (3 mol/L NaCl), pH below 3.1 or above 9.6, or treatment with 1% formaldehyde or Triton X-100 [54]. For practical on-farm disinfection, common disinfectants such as calcium hypochlorite [Ca(OCl)₂] at 16.25-130 ppm, hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) at 8.75-70 ppm, povidone-iodine (PVP-I) at 3-24 ppm, benzalkonium chloride (BKC) at 20-160 ppm, and formalin at 25-200 ppm have all demonstrated significant virucidal activity against DIV1 particles within 24 hours [49]. These data inform the development of standard operating procedures for pond preparation, equipment disinfection, and processing plant hygiene.

Import risk analysis, as performed by South Korea, underscores the importance of regulating not only live decapods but also unprocessed commodities like frozen prawns and polychaetes intended for feed or bait, which are often overlooked pathways for viral introduction [22]. Given the capacity of DIV1 to infect multiple species, including crabs like Portunus trituberculatus and Scylla paramamosain, and crayfish like Cherax quadricarinatus, biosecurity must extend beyond the target cultured species to include all co-inhabiting organisms in polyculture systems [4, 25]. The demonstration of DIV1 in wild Penaeus chinensis populations and in apparently healthy broodstock Penaeus monodon from the Indian Ocean further highlights the necessity of screening wild seed sources to prevent pathogen introduction into naive farming environments [26, 55].

### Nutritional and Immunomodulatory Interventions: Enhancing Host Resilience

In the absence of a vaccine, bolstering the innate immune system of crustaceans through nutritional modulation is a primary prophylactic strategy. Dietary supplementation with astaxanthin at 500 mg/kg has been shown to significantly improve survival in Macrobrachium rosenbergii following a DIV1 challenge [42]. This protective effect is mediated through multiple mechanisms: enhancement of antioxidant capacity (elevated plasma superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities), reduction of lipid peroxidation (lowered malondialdehyde (MDA) levels), and modulation of intestinal microbiota (decreased abundance of the potentially pathogenic Lactococcus garvieae) [42, 58]. Immunologically, astaxanthin upregulates the MyD88-dependent Toll-signaling pathway (toll, myd88, irf4 genes), which is critical for triggering antiviral responses [42]. Similarly, the traditional Chinese herbal compound Yinqiao Banlangen San has demonstrated protective efficacy in Litopenaeus vannamei, increasing survival rates by 20% through the inhibition of viral replication and the enhancement of immune enzyme activities (SOD, POD, ACP, AKP) [47]. These nutritional strategies represent a practical, cost-effective means of improving general health and disease resistance at the population level.

### Selective Breeding for Genetic Resistance: A Long-Term Strategic Investment

Perhaps the most sustainable long-term strategy for DIV1 management is the development of resistant or tolerant stocks through selective breeding. Recent integrated transcriptomic and microbiomic analyses have identified key correlates of resistance in M. rosenbergii. Resistant families exhibit distinct transcriptomic profiles, including the differential expression of genes involved in melanogenesis, energy metabolism, and steroid hormone biosynthesis, along with specific immune effectors like hemocyanin and interferon regulatory factors [58]. Crucially, these resistant individuals also harbor a distinct gut microbiome, characterized by a higher relative abundance of potential probiotics such as Enterococcus casseliflavus and a significantly lower abundance of pathogenic Lactococcus garvieae, suggesting a host-microbiome co-adaptation that contributes to disease tolerance [58].

Molecular markers are now available to accelerate this breeding process. A simple sequence repeat (SSR) in the 5' UTR of the interferon regulatory factor (IRF) gene in L. vannamei has been linked to viral resistance; shrimp carrying shorter (CT)n repeats demonstrate significantly higher resistance to both DIV1 and WSSV [59]. This marker can be used for marker-assisted selection (MAS) to screen broodstock and select for desirable genotypes. Furthermore, silencing of the host hexokinase gene (MrHK) or the hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) via RNA interference has been shown to reduce DIV1 replication and improve survival in M. rosenbergii, providing a potential target for future gene-editing or therapeutic RNAi-based strategies [16]. These findings illuminate the genetic architecture of resistance and offer tangible targets for breeding programs aimed at producing robust, DIV1-tolerant commercial lines.

### Direct Antiviral Therapeutics: From Passive Immunization to Metabolic Inhibitors

Targeted therapeutic strategies, while still largely in the experimental phase, are showing considerable promise. Passive immunization using a single-domain antibody (vNAR, D13) that targets the major capsid protein of DIV1 has demonstrated potent antiviral activity. In vitro, D13 vNAR achieved 82.5% inhibition of viral entry and replication by blocking both adsorption and release mechanisms [31]. When encapsulated in a composite protective agent for oral delivery and incorporated into feed at a 1% inclusion rate, this vNAR significantly reduced mortality in L. vannamei from 81.7% in the control group to just 23.3% following a DIV1 challenge, with no adverse effects on growth or survival [31]. This represents a major breakthrough in the feasibility of oral antiviral prophylaxis for crustaceans.

A complementary approach targets the virus's metabolic hijacking of the host cell. DIV1 has been shown to induce a Warburg-like glycolytic reprogramming in M. rosenbergii, stabilizing HIF-1α under normoxia to upregulate hexokinase (MrHK) and other glycolytic enzymes [16, 41]. Interrupting this metabolic pathway with the glucose analog 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG) reduced viral copies and improved survival rates from 21.21% to 43.33% [16]. Similarly, silencing or pharmacologically inhibiting lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) to reduce lactate production, a key end-product of glycolysis, also protected L. vannamei from DIV1 infection [41]. Drug repurposing studies, using molecular docking and simulation, have identified compounds like Chloroquine, Rimantadine, and CAP-1 as potential inhibitors of the DIV1 MCP, offering a pipeline of candidate drugs that require further in vivo validation [38]. Furthermore, a novel interference phenomenon has been observed where prior infection with Infectious Precocious Virus (IPV) suppresses DIV1 replication and reduces mortality in co-infected M. rosenbergii, suggesting that controlled viral interference or competitive displacement could be explored as a biological control strategy [50]. Finally, the elucidation of DIV1 entry mechanisms, caveola-mediated endocytosis dependent on cholesterol, dynamin, and microtubule trafficking, opens avenues for developing entry inhibitors that block this process, providing another layer of therapeutic target [24].

References

[1] Guo X, Wang G, Chen X, Xing J, Qiu L, Yao J, et al.. Penaeus chinensis Nearing a Critical Threshold of Susceptibility to Decapod Iridescent Virus 1.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2025.110523

[2] Qiu L, Chen X, Zhao R, Li C, Gao W, Zhang Q, et al.. Description of a Natural Infection with Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 in Farmed Giant Freshwater Prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Viruses. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v11040354

[3] Hao J, Jie Y, Lu Z, Ye T, Meng J, Liu C, et al.. Genomic characterization of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) and its host immune responses in Macrobrachium rosenbergii.. Developmental and Comparative Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2025.105491

[4] Wang M, Chen X, Guo X, Wang Y, Guan X, Qiu L, et al.. Confirmation of susceptibility of the mud crab Scylla paramamosain to Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1).. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2025.108491

[5] Mu Q, Ding C, Xie Y, Zhen X, Wang X, Qi T, et al.. Rapid Visual Detection of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) by RPA Combined With LFS.. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.70052

[6] Saravanan K, Rathinam R, Iburahim SA, Praveenraj J, Kiruba-Sankar R, Kumar G. Dissection of Emerging Shrimp Viruses Through Scientometric Assessment: Insights into Infectious Myonecrosis Virus (IMNV) and Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1). Viruses. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v17081115

[7] Chen X, Qiu L, Wang H, Zou P, Dong X, Li F, et al.. Susceptibility of Exopalaemon carinicauda to the Infection with Shrimp Hemocyte Iridescent Virus (SHIV 20141215), a Strain of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1). Viruses. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/PREPRINTS201902.0115.V1

[8] Qin L, Qian Q, Chen A, Zhang Y, Tang X, Yin T, et al.. Isolation and the pathogenicity characterization of Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) from diseased Macrobrachium nipponense and its activation on host immune response.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2024.109403

[9] Gong H, Li Q, Zhang H, Ye L, Shi L, Feng Y. Development and comparison of qPCR and qLAMP for rapid detection of the Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1).. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2021.107567

[10] Xu Y, Wang Y, Hu J, Bao Z, Wang M. Development and Visualization Improvement for the Rapid Detection of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) in Penaeus vannamei Based on an Isothermal Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Assay. Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14122752

[11] Qiu L, Chen X, Guo X, Gao W, Zhao R, Zhang Q, et al.. A TaqMan probe based real-time PCR for the detection of Decapod iridescent virus 1.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2020.107367

[12] Zheng Q, Rao H, Zhao F, Chen X, Wang W, Chen J. Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) 168L can target cuticle protein 8 from Litopenaeus vannamei.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2024.108162

[13] Lu Y, Chien T, Chiehhao W, Iwen C, Cheng M. Emergence of Decapod iridescent virus 1 in cultured shrimp from Taiwan in 2020. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.1216

[14] Qiu L, Guo X, Feng Y, Xing J, Ren X, Huang J. Susceptibility of kuruma shrimp to the infection with Decapod iridescent virus 1. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1114123

[15] Huang Q, Chen Y, Liu H, St-Hilaire S, Gao S, MacKinnon B, et al.. Establishment of a real-time Recombinase Polymerase Amplification (RPA) for the detection of decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1).. Journal of Virological Methods. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114377

[16] Jie Y, Hao J, Liu C, Yan J, Ye T, Meng J, et al.. HIF-1α-Mediated Glycolytic Reprogramming Facilitates Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 Pathogenesis in Macrobrachium rosenbergii: Central Role of Hexokinase in Viral Metabolic Hijacking.. Developmental and Comparative Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2025.105414

[17] Xu T, Tan R, Zhu Y, Ye J. Establishment of a SYBR Green I-based real-time PCR for the detection of Decapod iridescent virus 1.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2023.107998

[18] Qiu L, Chen X, Gao W, Li C, Guo X, Zhang Q, et al.. Molecular epidemiology and histopathological study of a natural infection with decapod iridescent virus 1 in farmed white leg shrimp, Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736105

[19] You Y, Xu L, Li F, Yang F. Proteomic analysis of the Decapod iridescent virus 1.. Virus Research. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2022.198686

[20] Zhao F, Liu Y, Zheng Q, Zhang Y, Han Y, Zhou D, et al.. Development and application of a quantitative real-time PCR method for detection of Decapod iridescent virus 1. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1472782

[21] Wang Y, Dai L, He Z, Hou D, Sun C. Recent Progress in the Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 Study. Journal of Shellfish Research. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2983/035.042.0113

[22] Kang G, Woo W, Kim K, Son H, Sohn M, Kim J, et al.. Import Risk Analysis of the Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) Applied in South Korea: Qualitative Risk Review and Institutional Improvement Plans. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9504014

[23] Xing J, Li A, Guo X, Wang M, Guan X, Qiu L, et al.. Optimizing the nested PCR method for Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) targeting ATPase gene by reselecting the inner primers.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2024.108212

[24] Zheng Q, Chen X, Zhao F, Zhang J, Chen J. Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) enters hematopoietic Cherax quadricarinatus cells via caveola-mediated endocytosis in a pH-dependent manner. Journal of Virology. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01681-25

[25] Qin P, Wang G, Luan Y, Xie J, He J, Shi H, et al.. Complete genome sequence and characterization of four Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 isolates from Crab and Shrimp.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2022.107852

[26] Srisala J, Sanguanrut P, Laiphrom S, Siriwattano J, Khudet J, Thaiue D, et al.. Infectious myonecrosis virus (IMNV) and decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) detected in Penaeus monodon from the Indian Ocean. bioRxiv. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.304972

[27] Lê TM, Phạm TV, Chu CT, Trương TMD, Đặng TL. Tổng quan Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) gây bệnh ở tôm. Tạp chí Khoa học - Công nghệ Thủy Sản, Trường Đại học Nha Trang. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53818/jfst.04.2021.104

[28] Lou H, Li X, Wang G, Zhang K, Wang K, Tang Q, et al.. Simultaneous detection of five shrimp pathogens using a single-tube EvaGreen real-time PCR assay with differential melting temperature. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00591-25

[29] Chen H, Zhou T, Li S, Feng J, Li W, Li L, et al.. Living Magnetotactic Microrobots Based on Bacteria with a Surface-Displayed CRISPR/Cas12a System for Penaeus Viruses Detection.. ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c09690

[30] Kang F, Xiao B, Fan T, Li Q, Liu M, He J, et al.. Subpopulation-specific apoptotic responses of hemocytes to decapod iridescent virus 1 in Macrobrachium rosenbergii.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2025.110685

[31] Chen J, Wang W, Zhang Q, Zheng Q, Jiang S, Cheng Y, et al.. A single domain antibody targeting major capsid protein of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) exerts anti-viral activity.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2025.110586

[32] Liao M, Liao X, Long X, Zhao J, He Z, Zhang J, et al.. Host-microbiota interactions and responses of Metapenaeus ensis infected with decapod iridescent virus 1. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1097931

[33] He Z, Zhao J, Chen X, Liao M, Xue Y, Zhou J, et al.. The Molecular Mechanism of Hemocyte Immune Response in Marsupenaeus japonicus Infected With Decapod Iridescent Virus 1. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.710845

[34] Liao X, Wang C, Wang B, Qin H, Hu S, Wang P, et al.. Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of Litopenaeus vannamei Reveals That Triosephosphate Isomerase-Like Genes Play an Important Role During Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 Infection. Frontiers in Immunology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01904

[35] Sanguanrut P, Thaiue D, Thawonsuwan J, Aldama-Cano DJ, Flegel T, Sritunyalucksana K. The lymphoid organ (LO) is an additional, prime target for decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) in Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737482

[36] Lu Y, Tan R, Ye J, Si G, Xu T, Pan X. Screening of host proteins interacting with the major capsid protein of decapod iridescent virus 1 in Litopenaeus vannamei by the yeast two-hybrid system.. Developmental and Comparative Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dci.2025.105500

[37] Tong G, Yin W, Wu X, Lin Y, Huang G, Chen X, et al.. Rapid detection of Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) by recombinase polymerase amplification.. Journal of Virological Methods. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2021.114362

[38] Azemin W, Ishak NF, Saedin MAA, Shamsir MS, Razali S. Molecular docking and simulation studies of Chloroquine, Rimantadine and CAP-1 as potential repurposed antivirals for decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1). Fish and Shellfish Immunology Reports. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsirep.2023.100120

[39] Dong X, Wang G, Wang K, Zhang K, Xu H, Wang L, et al.. Emerging Viruses in Decapod Crustaceans: A Global Review. Reviews in Aquaculture. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.70147

[40] Liao X, Liu S, Chen S, Wang J, He J, Li C. The TNF-TNFR-TRAF6 axis mediates NF-κB-dependent antiviral immunity against DIV1 in shrimp.. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.149256

[41] Liao X, Liu S, Chen S, Shan X, He J, Li C. Transcriptomic analysis reveals the role of Glycolysis pathway in Litopenaeus vannamei during DIV1 infection.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2023.109036

[42] Liu C, Jing Q, Wang L, Huang Q, Jie Y, Zheng Y, et al.. The effects of dietary astaxanthin on the intestinal microbiota and metabolites, antioxidant capacity, and resistance to Decapod iridescent virus 1 in Macrobrachium rosenbergii.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2025.110704

[43] Gao X, Zhu Y, Qian Q, Chen A, Qin L, Tang X, et al.. The Immune Defense Response and Immune-Related Genes Expression in Macrobrachium nipponense Infected with Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1). Animals. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14192864

[44] He Z, Zhong Y, Hou D, Hu X, Fu Z, Liu L, et al.. Integrated Analysis of mRNA-Seq and MiRNA-Seq Reveals the Molecular Mechanism of the Intestinal Immune Response in Marsupenaeus japonicus Under Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 Infection. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.807093

[45] He Z, Zhong Y, Liao M, Dai L, Wang Y, Zhang S, et al.. Integrated analysis of intestinal microbiota and metabolomic reveals that decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) infection induces secondary bacterial infection and metabolic reprogramming in Marsupenaeus japonicus. bioRxiv. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.982717

[46] Yang H, Wei X, Rui W, Lan Z, Yang Y, Huang G, et al.. Transcriptomics of Cherax quadricarinatus hepatopancreas during infection with Decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1).. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.11.041

[47] 董 学. Evaluation of Protective and Immunomodulatory Effects of Yinqiao Banlangen San against Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1) in Litopenaeus vannamei. Hans Journal of Biomedicine. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12677/hjbm.2026.163043

[48] Wan B, Lei Y, Yuan Z, Wang W. Metagenomic dissection of the intestinal microbiome in the giant river prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii infected with Decapod iridescent virus 1.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2024.109617

[49] Keawthong C, Bunnoy A, Chuchird N, Srisapoome P. Immune responses and histopathological analyses of giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii, De Man 1879) challenged with a sub-lethal dose of decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) and chemical control investigation.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2023.108792

[50] Lou H, Wang G, Li X, Zhou C, Guo X, Wang L, et al.. Infection with infectious precocious virus (IPV) suppresses infection with Decapoda iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) in Macrobrachium rosenbergii.. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2025.108337

[51] Feng Y, Guo X, Xing J, Qiu L, Huang J. Investigating the Heat Stability and Inactivation Conditions of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1). Animal Research and One Health. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aro2.70058

[52] Liao X, Wang C, Wang B, Qin H, Hu S, Zhao J, et al.. Research into the hemocyte immune response of Fenneropenaeus merguiensis under decapod iridescent virus 1 (DIV1) challenge using transcriptome analysis.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2020.05.053

[53] Zheng J, Jia Y, Li F, Chi M, Cheng S, Liu S, et al.. Changes in the gene expression and gut microbiome to the infection of decapod iridescent virus 1 in Cherax quadricarinatus.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2022.108451

[54] Guo X, Xing J, Qiu L, Huang J. Effects of Chemical Factors on the Infectivity of Decapod Iridescent Virus 1 (DIV1).. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2023.108023

[55] Qin J, Meng F, Wang G, Chen Y, Zhang F, Li C, et al.. Coinfection with Yellow Head Virus Genotype 8 (YHV-8) and Oriental Wenrivirus 1 (OWV1) in Wild Penaeus chinensis from the Yellow Sea. Viruses. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v15020361

[56] Dong X, Chen Y, Lou H, Wang G, Zhou C, Wang L, et al.. Development of a Melting Curve-Based Triple Eva Green Real-Time PCR Assay for Simultaneous Detection of Three Shrimp Pathogens. Animals. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040592

[57] Kalaria KK, Girisha SK, Nithin MS, Puneeth TG, Kushala KB, Suresh T. Prevalence of disease outbreak from cultured whiteleg shrimp Penaeus vannamei farms located in Karnataka, India. emergent Life Sciences Research. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31783/elsr.2022.82240247

[58] Hao J, Jie Y, Lu Z, Ye T, Meng J, Liu C, et al.. Integrated transcriptomic and microbiomic analyses reveal mechanisms of Decapod iridescent virus 1 resistance in Macrobrachium rosenbergii.. Frontiers in Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1611481

[59] Yin B, Wang H, Weng S, Li S, He J, Li C. A simple sequence repeats marker of disease resistance in shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei and its application in selective breeding. Frontiers in Genetics. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1144361

[60] Li C, Jiang K, Qiu L, Zhang Q, Yang B. Establishment of two visual interpretation methods of DIV1 LAMP amplification products.. Journal of Virological Methods. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4361439

[61] Hu K, Li Y, Wang F, Liu J, Li Y, Zhao Q, et al.. A loop-mediated isothermal amplification-based microfluidic chip for triplex detection of shrimp pathogens.. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.13727