Duck Viral Enteritis Virus

Overview and Taxonomy of Duck Viral Enteritis Virus

Duck viral enteritis (DVE), also historically referred to as duck plague, represents one of the most economically significant and acutely fatal viral diseases affecting both domestic and wild waterfowl populations globally. The causative agent, Duck Enteritis Virus (DEV), is a member of the Herpesviridae family, a lineage of large, enveloped, double-stranded DNA viruses known for their capacity to establish lifelong latent infections and their profound impact on host health and agricultural productivity. The disease is recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) as a notifiable aquatic animal disease of considerable epornitic potential, underscoring its importance in international trade and veterinary public health. The global distribution of DEV, from the Haor wetlands of Bangladesh to commercial farms in China, Europe, and the Americas [1, 2, 28], necessitates a thorough understanding of its taxonomic position, structural biology, and molecular epidemiology to inform both diagnostic strategies and the development of effective control measures, including the next generation of recombinant vectored vaccines [3, 11, 21].

Taxonomic Classification and Phylogenetic Position

DEV is classified within the order Herpesvirales, family Herpesviridae, subfamily Alphaherpesvirinae. The specific species designation is Anatid alphaherpesvirus 1. This taxonomic assignment is definitive and is supported by a suite of biological and molecular characteristics, including a rapid reproductive cycle, cytopathic effect in cell culture, the capacity to establish latent infections primarily in sensory ganglia, and a broad host range within the order Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) [1, 2, 15]. More precisely, phylogenetic analyses of conserved viral genes, such as the DNA polymerase (UL30) and the terminase subunit (UL15), consistently place DEV in a distinct clade within the Alphaherpesvirinae, most closely related to the genus Mardivirus, which includes Marek's disease virus (MDV) of chickens, and distinct from the Simplexvirus and Varicellovirus genera that contain human herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) and varicella-zoster virus (VZV), respectively [32]. This close relationship to avian alphaherpesviruses like MDV is evolutionarily significant, reflecting a long co-adaptation with avian hosts. The complete genome of a virulent DEV strain (YLBRDP_11) isolated from a local outbreak in northern Bangladesh has been sequenced, revealing a genome of 161,633 base pairs with a guanine-cytosine (GC) content of 44.9%, encoding 74 distinct proteins [5]. This genomic architecture, with its large capacity for harboring non-essential regions, fundamentally underlies the virus's utility as a recombinant vaccine vector for expressing protective antigens from other duck pathogens, such as duck hepatitis A virus (DHAV), duck Tembusu virus (DTMUV), and highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) [16, 21, 26].

Genomic Architecture and Virion Structure

The DEV genome is a linear double-stranded DNA molecule that conforms to a type D herpesvirus genome arrangement, characterized by a unique long (UL) region flanked by internal repeat sequences (IRS) and a unique short (US) region flanked by terminal repeat sequences (TRS) [9, 14]. This complex arrangement is critical for replication and provides multiple sites for homologous recombination, which has been exploited in the development of recombinant viruses [11, 22]. The virion itself is a structurally complex entity, typical of the Herpesviridae. It consists of an electron-dense core containing the DNA genome wound around a proteinaceous spool, enclosed within an icosahedral capsid approximately 100-110 nm in diameter. This capsid is composed of major capsid proteins, including the product of the spliced UL15 gene, which forms part of the terminase complex responsible for DNA cleavage and packaging [32]. Surrounding the capsid is a proteinaceous layer known as the tegument, a densely packed matrix of viral proteins that are delivered into the host cell upon entry. These tegument proteins, such as VP16, UL13, US10, UL41, UL24, and VP26, are critical for immediate-early gene transactivation, evasion of the host innate immune response, and modulation of the cellular environment to favor viral replication [4, 7, 10, 17, 20, 23, 25]. The outermost layer of the particle is a lipid envelope derived from host cell membranes, studded with viral glycoprotein spikes essential for attachment, entry, and cell-to-cell spread. These include glycoprotein B (gB), gC, gD, gH, gL, and gI, each with specific functions in receptor binding, membrane fusion, and immune evasion [9, 12, 13, 24, 31]. The intricate interplay between these structural and non-structural components dictates the virus's pathogenesis, host range, and capacity to persist in the environment.

Molecular Biology and Replicative Cycle

A defining characteristic of all alphaherpesviruses, including DEV, is a strictly regulated cascade of gene expression, which is a cornerstone of the overview of its biology. Following entry and uncoating, the viral genome is delivered to the nucleus of the host cell, where the tegument protein VP16 initiates a temporally coordinated program. The first set of genes to be transcribed are the immediate-early (IE) genes, exemplified by the DEV UL54 gene (a homologue of HSV-1 ICP27) [8, 27]. UL54 is a critical regulator of viral gene expression, shuttling between the nucleus and cytoplasm to facilitate the export of intronless viral mRNAs and to inhibit host cell protein synthesis. Its expression is detected as early as 0.5 hours post-infection and is insensitive to inhibitors of viral DNA synthesis, confirming its designation as an IE gene [27]. The UL54 protein is initially found in the cytoplasm before undergoing a time-dependent translocation to the nucleus, where it orchestrates the transcription of the next wave of genes [27]. The second phase involves the expression of early (E) genes, which encode enzymes required for viral DNA replication. The DEV UL13 gene, encoding a Ser/Thr protein kinase, is an exemplary E gene; its transcription is detected at 2 hours post-infection and is sensitive to cycloheximide (a protein synthesis inhibitor) but tolerant to ganciclovir (a DNA polymerase inhibitor) [7]. Viral DNA replication occurs via a rolling-circle mechanism, generating concatemeric DNA that is subsequently cleaved and packaged into preformed capsids. The third and final phase is the expression of late (L) genes, which are dependent on viral DNA synthesis and primarily encode structural proteins that form the virion. The DEV UL16 gene, which encodes a tegument protein, is a classic late gene; its transcription is first detected at low levels, peaking at 36 hours post-infection, and is completely abolished in the presence of the DNA polymerase inhibitor acyclovir [29]. Similarly, the UL55 gene is classified as a γ2 late gene, exhibiting a strict requirement for viral DNA replication and peaking at 36 hours post-infection [30]. Following the assembly of capsids and packaging of the genome, the virion acquires its tegument and envelope through a complex process of nuclear egress and secondary envelopment in the cytoplasm, involving interactions with host cell membranes and the actin–myosin II network, a process that the viral VP26 protein has been shown to exploit for efficient viral proliferation [4, 14].

Host Interaction and Pathogenesis

The pathogenic success of DEV is predicated on a sophisticated molecular arms race between the virus and the host's formidable innate immune defenses. Waterfowl possess a robust antiviral system, including pattern recognition receptors such as RIG-I (retinoic acid-inducible gene I) and MDA5 (melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5), which detect viral nucleic acids and trigger the production of type I interferons (IFN-α/β) [18, 19]. These interferons then induce a battery of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs), such as Mx and OASL, which establish an antiviral state within the cell [19]. DEV, however, has evolved a multi-pronged strategy to neutralize this response. The virus encodes multiple proteins that directly target the cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS)-STING DNA-sensing pathway, a primary conduit for recognizing its own DNA genome. Specifically, the tegument protein UL41 acts as a potent inhibitor of this pathway by selectively diminishing the accumulation of interferon regulatory factor 7 (IRF7) mRNA, thereby crippling the downstream production of IFN-β [10]. Furthermore, the VP16 tegument protein binds directly to duck IRF7 protein to inhibit its activity, while the UL24 protein induces K48/K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF7, targeting it for proteasomal degradation [17, 25]. This redundancy in immune evasion highlights the critical importance of the IRF7-IFN axis in controlling DEV infection. Contemporary research has also illuminated the role of non-coding RNAs in this host-pathogen interaction. Deep sequencing analysis of cells infected with the virulent DEV CHv strain identified a unique set of 39 viral microRNAs (miRNAs) that are distinct from those encoded by attenuated vaccine strains [6]. These viral miRNAs are predicted to target both viral and host genes, forming a complex regulatory network that likely fine-tunes the expression of viral genes and manipulates cellular processes such as metabolism and apoptosis to favor viral persistence [6]. This represents a sophisticated level of post-transcriptional regulation that deepens our understanding of DEV's pathogenic mechanisms and its ability to maintain lifelong infections in its natural hosts.

Clinical Manifestations and Pathological Lesions

Duck viral enteritis (DVE), also known as duck plague, is an acute, highly contagious, and frequently fatal herpesvirus infection of Anseriformes, including ducks, geese, and swans, caused by Anatid alphaherpesvirus 1 (duck enteritis virus, DEV). The clinical manifestations and pathological lesions associated with DEV infection are profoundly influenced by viral strain virulence, host species, age, immune status, and the presence of concurrent infections. The disease is characterized by a peracute to acute course, with morbidity and mortality rates that can approach 100% in susceptible naïve populations, leading to catastrophic economic losses in commercial duck operations and significant threats to wild waterfowl conservation efforts globally [1, 2, 33]. The incubation period in domestic ducks typically ranges from 3 to 7 days, though it can be shorter under conditions of high viral exposure or stress [9]. The disease is notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) due to its potential for rapid spread and severe economic impact on poultry industries.

Systemic Clinical Signs

The clinical presentation of DVE is highly variable, ranging from sudden death without premonitory signs in peracute cases to a more protracted syndrome in subacute or chronic infections. In acute outbreaks, affected ducks exhibit profound depression, anorexia, and a marked increase in thirst (polydipsia) [1, 15]. Ocular and nasal discharges, often serous initially but becoming mucopurulent, are common. A characteristic and pathognomonic clinical sign is photophobia, or extreme sensitivity to light, where affected birds may attempt to hide their heads under their wings or in shaded areas. This is accompanied by partial or complete ptosis, or drooping of the eyelids, due to edema and inflammation of the conjunctival tissues. As the disease progresses, severe diarrhea ensues. The feces are initially watery and greenish, reflecting bile staining and intestinal inflammation, but may later become hemorrhagic, containing frank blood [15, 37]. This enteritis is a direct consequence of viral replication and destruction of the intestinal mucosa. Neurological signs, including incoordination, ataxia, tremors, and progressive partial paralysis of the legs leading to an inability to stand, are frequently observed in the terminal stages of infection [15, 40]. In laying flocks, a dramatic drop in egg production of up to 40% is a prominent and economically devastating clinical sign, often preceding mortality [2]. Mortality typically begins 3 to 5 days post-exposure and peaks within 7 to 10 days, with rates varying from 5% to 100% depending on the virulence of the circulating strain and the susceptibility of the host population [9, 40].

Macroscopic Gross Pathological Lesions

Postmortem examination of ducks succumbing to virulent DEV infection reveals a constellation of characteristic and highly diagnostic gross lesions. The most consistently reported findings involve the liver, spleen, gastrointestinal tract, and cardiovascular system.

1. Hepatic and Splenic Lesions: The liver is invariably affected. It is typically enlarged, friable, and exhibits a mottled, congested appearance. The hallmark hepatic lesion is the presence of multiple, pinpoint to petechial, and occasionally larger ecchymotic hemorrhages scattered diffusely across the hepatic parenchyma [1, 15, 37]. These hemorrhages can be so extensive as to give the liver a "paintbrush" or "nutmeg" appearance. In addition to hemorrhages, pale, yellowish-white necrotic foci, ranging from pinpoint to several millimeters in diameter, are often present, surrounded by zones of hyperemia. The spleen is similarly enlarged and congested, often appearing dark purple or black, and may also contain discrete hemorrhagic or necrotic foci [1, 15, 37]. The consistent and severe involvement of these reticuloendothelial organs underscores the systemic nature of the viral infection and the direct cytolytic effect of DEV on these tissues.

2. Gastrointestinal Tract Lesions: The gastrointestinal tract is a primary target of DEV, and the lesions observed here are among the most pathognomonic. The esophagus, particularly the anterior portion, and the cloaca typically exhibit raised, yellow, fibrinous plaques or diphtheritic membranes that are firmly adherent to the underlying mucosa. These plaques are often arranged in a distinctive, concentrically layered pattern, described as "annular rings" or "button-like" ulcers, which are considered highly characteristic of DVE [1, 15, 37]. Upon removal of these plaques, the underlying mucosa is eroded and hemorrhagic. The small intestine, especially the duodenum and jejunum, displays severe catarrhal to hemorrhagic enteritis. The intestinal wall is thickened, edematous, and hyperemic, and the lumen is often filled with blood-tinged fluid or frank hemorrhagic casts [37]. The lymphoid aggregates, such as Peyer's patches, are often necrotic and hemorrhagic, appearing as raised, hemorrhagic nodules. The severity of enteritis is directly correlated with the degree of diarrhea observed clinically.

3. Cardiovascular and Respiratory Lesions: The heart often exhibits petechial hemorrhages on the epicardial surface, particularly along the coronary groove and at the base of the great vessels. The pericardial sac may be distended with straw-colored or slightly blood-tinged fluid. In the respiratory tract, the trachea and larynx are frequently congested. A highly characteristic finding is the presence of petechial to ecchymotic hemorrhages in the annular rings of the tracheal mucosa, which can be so pronounced as to form a "blood ring" around the tracheal lumen [1, 15, 37]. The lungs are often congested and edematous, but specific necrotic lesions are less common than in the digestive tract.

4. Other Lesions: Hemorrhages may also be observed on the serosal surfaces of the abdominal and thoracic cavities [1]. The bursa of Fabricius and thymus, primary lymphoid organs in young birds, are often atrophied and hemorrhagic, reflecting the immunosuppressive nature of the virus [37]. In severe cases, the kidneys may be swollen and pale. The histopathological findings of esophageal and cloacal glandular epithelium degeneration and necrosis have been meticulously documented [37]. It is crucial to note that while geese and swans can exhibit similar lesions, species-specific variations in the severity and distribution of pathology have been reported [38].

Microscopic Histopathological Lesions and Cytopathology

Histopathological examination provides definitive evidence of DEV infection. The virus has a marked tropism for epithelial cells of the digestive tract, hepatocytes, and lymphoid tissues.

1. Intranuclear Inclusion Bodies: The microscopic hallmark of DVE is the presence of characteristic eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies (Cowdry Type A inclusions) within infected cells [2, 38]. These inclusions are most readily identified in hepatocytes surrounding necrotic foci, in epithelial cells of the esophageal glands, and in the cloacal epithelium. The inclusion bodies are large, homogeneous, and eosinophilic, often displacing the host chromatin to the periphery of the nucleus, creating a distinct "halo" effect. The presence of these inclusions is conclusive evidence of herpesviral infection and is a key diagnostic criterion [2].

2. Hepatic Histopathology: The liver exhibits a severe, multifocal to diffuse necrotizing hepatitis. Hepatocytes show coagulative necrosis, characterized by pyknosis, karyorrhexis, and karyolysis. The necrotic foci are infiltrated with heterophils and mononuclear cells. The hemorrhagic foci observed grossly correspond to areas of hepatocellular necrosis and disruption of hepatic sinusoids. Eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies are frequently observed in viable hepatocytes adjacent to areas of necrosis [2, 39].

3. Gastrointestinal and Lymphoid Histopathology: In the esophagus and cloaca, the diphtheritic plaques consist of necrotic cellular debris, fibrin, and inflammatory cells overlying a severely ulcerated mucosa. The submucosal esophageal glands are a primary target, showing marked degeneration and necrosis of the glandular epithelium, with prominent intranuclear inclusion bodies [37, 38]. In the small intestine, the villi are blunted, fused, and often denuded of epithelium. The lamina propria is heavily infiltrated with inflammatory cells. In lymphoid organs such as the bursa of Fabricius, thymus, and spleen, there is profound lymphocytolysis and necrosis of lymphoid follicles, leading to lymphoid depletion. Viral replication within these organs leads to immunosuppression, which can predispose birds to secondary bacterial infections [37].

4. Viral Pathogenesis and Cellular Mechanisms: The pathological lesions are a direct result of DEV's lytic replication cycle and its sophisticated strategies to evade the host immune response. At the cellular level, DEV infection induces apoptosis and endoplasmic reticulum stress (ERS) in duck embryo fibroblast (DEF) cells, with significant upregulation of CHOP, GRP78, and ATF6, mediated by a decrease in intracellular Ca2+ concentration [36]. This virus-induced cell death contributes to the extensive tissue necrosis observed in target organs. Concurrently, DEV actively subverts the host's innate antiviral defenses. Multiple viral proteins, including the tegument protein UL41, have been identified as potent inhibitors of the cGAS-STING DNA-sensing pathway, selectively reducing the accumulation of interferon regulatory factor 7 (IRF7) mRNA to block interferon-β production [10]. Similarly, the VP16 protein binds directly to duck IRF7 to inhibit IFN-β promoter activity [17], while the UL24 protein initiates K48/K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF7, targeting it for proteasomal degradation [25]. This comprehensive suppression of the type I interferon response allows for unimpeded viral replication and dissemination, exacerbating the severity of pathological lesions. The tropism of DEV for specific cell types, such as esophageal glandular epithelium, is also linked to specific viral gene functions; for example, the UL50 gene (dUTPase) is crucial for replication in non-dividing neuronal cells but is dispensable in fibroblasts, highlighting the cell-type-specific nature of viral pathogenesis [35].

Clinical Manifestations in Other Host Species

While the classic clinical signs are described in domestic ducks, the expression of disease can vary in other susceptible waterfowl. In an epornitic at a zoological park, eight different duck species were affected, while geese and swans were spared, suggesting species-specific susceptibility [38]. A case report in a flock of Australian black swans (Cygnus atratus) documented identical clinical signs of anorexia, greenish watery diarrhea, increased thirst, and partial paralysis, culminating in death. Necropsy revealed the classic hemorrhagic annular rings in the trachea and an enlarged, hemorrhagic liver and spleen, confirming that the disease is equally devastating in non-domestic species [15]. In chickens, experimental infection with a DEV-vectored vaccine (DEV-H5) caused significant mortality (60%) and clinical signs including lethargy, anorexia, and diarrhea, with viral shedding and associated gross and histological lesions in multiple organs, indicating that while not a natural host, chickens are not completely resistant to productive infection [34]. This finding has critical implications for the use of DEV as a vaccine vector in poultry, necessitating further attenuation to ensure safety.

Molecular Pathogenesis and Genomic Characterization

Genomic Architecture and Phylogenetic Context

Duck enteritis virus (DEV), taxonomically designated as Anatid alphaherpesvirus 1, possesses a linear double-stranded DNA genome characteristic of the Alphaherpesvirinae subfamily. Complete genome sequencing of the Bangladeshi strain YLBRDP_11 revealed a genome of 161,633 base pairs encoding 74 proteins with a guanine-cytosine content of 44.9% [5]. This genomic size aligns with the approximately 158,091 bp genome previously described for Indian isolates, which exhibits the prototypical type-D herpesvirus arrangement pattern of unique long (UL) region, internal repeat sequence (IRS), unique short (US) region, and terminal repeat sequence (TRS) [9]. The phylogenetic positioning of DEV within the Mardivirus genus has been substantiated through comparative analysis of the UL15 terminase subunit, which demonstrates that DEV shares its closest evolutionary relationships with other avian alphaherpesviruses while maintaining distinct lineage-specific adaptations [32]. This genomic configuration provides the molecular foundation for understanding the virus's sophisticated pathogenic strategies, including its capacity for latency, immune evasion, and broad tissue tropism across multiple waterfowl species.

The DEV genome harbors a complex repertoire of genes that orchestrate the viral life cycle through temporally regulated expression cascades. Transcriptional kinetic analyses have classified DEV genes into immediate-early (IE), early (E), and late (L) categories, mirroring the canonical herpesviral regulatory hierarchy. The UL54 gene, a homolog of herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) ICP27, exemplifies the IE class, with transcripts detectable as early as 0.5 hours post-infection and exhibiting insensitivity to both the DNA polymerase inhibitor ganciclovir and the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide [27]. This IE protein initially distributes diffusely throughout the cytoplasm before translocating to the nucleus by 2 hours post-infection, where it orchestrates downstream viral gene expression [27]. The functional significance of UL54 extends to its role in regulating viral mRNA transcription, nuclear export, and translation, as UL54-deleted mutants demonstrate markedly impaired growth kinetics, reduced plaque size, and diminished viral DNA copy numbers compared to parental virus [8]. Furthermore, UL54 physically interacts with the UL24 protein, suggesting a coordinated regulatory network among DEV-encoded proteins that modulates the temporal progression of infection [45].

Molecular Mechanisms of Viral Entry and Cellular Tropism

The initial stages of DEV infection are mediated by a suite of envelope glycoproteins that facilitate viral attachment, membrane fusion, and cellular entry. Glycoprotein C (gC) serves as a critical mediator of host cell recognition, and proteomic screening of gC-interacting host proteins has identified 21 cellular partners, including GNG2, AR1H1, PPP2CA, UBE2I, MCM5, NUBP1, and HN1 [13]. These interactions were validated through membrane-bound split-ubiquitin yeast two-hybrid and bimolecular fluorescence complementation analyses, confirming direct physical associations between gC and these host factors [13]. The functional implications of these interactions are profound, as they implicate DEV in hijacking cellular signaling pathways, cell cycle regulation, and ubiquitin-mediated processes to establish productive infection. The glycoprotein H and L (gH/gL) complex represents another essential entry machinery component, with co-immunoprecipitation and co-localization studies demonstrating that DEV gH and gL form heterodimers within the cytoplasm of infected cells [24]. This interaction is evolutionarily conserved across the Herpesviridae and is indispensable for the membrane fusion events required for viral penetration.

The capsid-associated VP26 protein, encoded by the DEV genome, has emerged as a pivotal regulator of viral proliferation through its interactions with the host cytoskeletal network. Co-immunoprecipitation coupled with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry identified 17 host proteins that interact with VP26 during infection, with the majority being microfilament or cytoskeletal proteins involved in actin filament binding, microfilament motor activity, and myosin II interactions [4]. Among these, non-muscle myosin IIA heavy chain (MYH9) was verified to directly interact with the carboxyl-terminus domain of VP26 (amino acids 1651-1960) through both co-localization and co-immunoprecipitation assays [4]. The functional relevance of this interaction was demonstrated through pharmacological inhibition studies: cytochalasin D and latrunculin A, which disrupt actin polymerization, significantly reduced DEV titers, while siRNA-mediated knockdown of MYH9 similarly impaired viral replication [4]. The myosin II ATPase inhibitor (-)-blebbistatin exhibited potent antiviral activity both in vitro and in vivo, establishing the actin-myosin II network as a critical host dependency factor for DEV proliferation [4]. These findings illuminate a sophisticated mechanism whereby DEV subverts the host cytoskeletal machinery to facilitate intracellular transport, capsid trafficking, and viral egress.

Host Innate Immune Evasion Strategies

DEV has evolved a multifaceted arsenal of countermeasures to subvert the host interferon (IFN) response, enabling persistent replication and the establishment of latency. The cGAS-STING DNA-sensing pathway represents a primary target for DEV-mediated immune evasion, with systematic screening identifying multiple viral proteins, including UL41, US3, UL28, UL53, and UL24, that block IFN-β activation through this pathway [10]. The tegument protein UL41 exhibits the most potent inhibitory effect, selectively downregulating interferon regulatory factor 7 (IRF7) expression by reducing its mRNA accumulation [10]. This mechanism is particularly significant because IRF7 serves as a master regulator of type I IFN responses in ducks. Ectopic expression of UL41 markedly reduces viral DNA-triggered IFN-β production and promotes viral replication, whereas UL41-deficient viruses induce heightened IFN-β responses and exhibit impaired replication in vivo [10]. The specificity of UL41-mediated suppression is underscored by its ability to restore replication of UL41-deficient virus when IRF7 is knocked down, confirming that IRF7 is the critical target through which UL41 exerts its immune-evasive functions [10].

The VP16 protein represents another sophisticated immune antagonist that operates through direct physical interaction with duck IRF7. VP16 selectively blocks duIFN-β promoter activity at the duIRF7 level rather than duIRF1, and co-immunoprecipitation assays confirmed that VP16 binds directly to duIRF7 but not duIRF1 [17]. This specificity suggests that DEV has evolved to target the IRF7 branch of the interferon induction cascade, which is particularly critical for antiviral responses in waterfowl. The N-terminus of VP16 (amino acids 1-200) is essential for this anti-interferon activity, and VP16 expression significantly inhibits mRNA transcription of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) including myxovirus resistance protein (Mx) and interferon-induced oligoadenylate synthetase-like (OASL) [17]. The UL24 protein employs yet another mechanism to antagonize innate immunity by initiating K48/K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF7, targeting it for proteasomal degradation [25]. This ubiquitin-mediated degradation is alleviated by the proteasome inhibitor MG132, confirming that UL24 promotes IRF7 turnover through the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway [25]. UL24 also broadly suppresses mRNA accumulation of multiple immune signaling molecules, including cGAS, STING, TBK1, and IRF7, demonstrating a multi-pronged strategy to dismantle the host antiviral response [25].

Regulation of Apoptosis and Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress

DEV infection profoundly perturbs cellular homeostasis, inducing a complex interplay between apoptotic cell death and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress responses that influence viral pathogenesis. Infection with the Chinese standard challenge strain (DEV-CSC) significantly decreases intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration while suppressing cell viability and inducing apoptosis in duck embryo fibroblast (DEF) cells [36]. This apoptotic induction is mechanistically linked to ER stress, as evidenced by the significant upregulation of C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP), glucose regulatory protein 78 (GRP78), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) following DEV infection [36]. The addition of the calcium chelator ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) reverses both apoptosis and ER stress-mediated inhibition of cell viability, establishing Ca²⁺ dysregulation as a central mediator of DEV-induced cytopathology [36]. These findings indicate that DEV manipulates calcium signaling to create a cellular environment conducive to viral replication while simultaneously triggering stress responses that contribute to tissue pathology.

The temporal dynamics of DEV-induced apoptosis follow a characteristic pattern, with apoptotic cell populations increasing progressively over the course of infection. Flow cytometric analysis using Annexin V-FITC/propidium iodide staining revealed that the percentage of apoptotic cells reaches maximum levels at 120 hours post-infection, while non-apoptotic cell populations correspondingly decline [42]. This apoptotic cascade occurs prior to necrotic cell death, suggesting that DEV actively regulates the mode of cell death to optimize viral dissemination while minimizing premature host cell destruction [42]. The viral factors governing this apoptotic switch remain incompletely characterized, but the identification of multiple DEV proteins that interact with host cell death machinery, including those involved in cytoskeletal regulation and signal transduction, suggests that DEV encodes dedicated pro- and anti-apoptotic functions that fine-tune the cellular response to infection.

Viral MicroRNAs and Post-Transcriptional Regulation

The discovery of DEV-encoded microRNAs (miRNAs) has added a new dimension to our understanding of viral pathogenesis, revealing sophisticated post-transcriptional regulatory networks that modulate both viral and host gene expression. High-throughput sequencing of the Chinese virulent strain (CHv) identified 39 mature viral miRNAs from infected DEF cells, of which 8 were novel compared to the 33 miRNAs previously reported for the attenuated vaccine strain [6]. Comparative analysis revealed that only 13 miRNA sequences and 22 seed sequences were identical between the virulent and vaccine strains, indicating that pathogenic potential correlates with distinct miRNA expression profiles [6]. Bioinformatic predictions using RNAhybrid and PITA software demonstrated that 38 of these CHv-encoded miRNAs potentially target 41 viral genes, forming a complex regulatory network that likely fine-tunes the temporal progression of infection [6]. The functional relevance of this network was confirmed through dual luciferase reporter assays, which verified that dev-miR-D8-3p directly targets the 3'-untranslated region of the CHv US1 gene [6].

The impact of DEV infection extends to the host miRNA landscape, with 598 novel duck-encoded miRNAs identified during infection. Among these, 38 host miRNAs exhibited significant differential expression following CHv infection, with 13 upregulated and 25 downregulated [6]. Gene Ontology analysis revealed that the predicted host target genes of viral miRNAs are primarily involved in biological regulation, cellular processes, and metabolic pathways, suggesting that DEV manipulates host miRNA expression to create a cellular environment optimized for viral replication [6]. This miRNA-mediated regulation represents a previously underappreciated layer of host-virus interaction that may contribute to tissue tropism, latency establishment, and species specificity.

Virulence Determinants and Genomic Plasticity

The molecular basis of DEV virulence has been elucidated through comparative genomic analysis of attenuated and virulent strains, revealing specific genetic determinants that govern pathogenicity. Serial passage of the virulent strain E1 on chicken embryo fibroblasts generated the attenuated strain E74, which completely lost pathogenicity in ducks while retaining immunogenicity [41]. Whole-genome sequencing identified a 5,152 base pair deletion in the UL region of E74, resulting in the loss of four genes: a hypothetical protein, LORF5, UL55, and LORF4 [41]. The causal relationship between this deletion and attenuation was confirmed through construction of a rescued virus (rE1-Δ5152) on the E1 backbone, which similarly exhibited complete loss of lethality in ducks [41]. This region therefore represents a critical virulence locus, and its dispensability for viral replication in cell culture makes it an ideal insertion site for foreign genes in recombinant vaccine development [11, 41].

The UL55 gene, located within this deletion region, has been characterized as a late (γ2) gene whose transcription is dependent on viral DNA synthesis and sensitive to ganciclovir inhibition [30]. Despite its association with virulence, UL55 is dispensable for viral replication in cell culture, as UL55 deletion mutants exhibit growth curves, plaque morphology, and viral titers comparable to parental virus [44]. Furthermore, UL55 deletion does not affect the intracellular distribution of the UL26.5 protein, indicating that its function is not required for normal capsid assembly or protein trafficking [44]. These characteristics, association with virulence coupled with dispensability for in vitro replication, position UL55 and its neighboring loci as promising targets for generating attenuated vaccine strains and multivalent vaccine vectors.

The UL50 gene, encoding a conserved viral dUTPase, represents another virulence determinant with cell-type-specific functions. UL50-deleted mutants (ΔUL50) exhibit reduced replication efficiency in DEFs, characterized by smaller plaques and lower viral titers, although overall growth kinetics remain broadly similar to wild-type virus [35]. Remarkably, in duck dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons, ΔUL50 replication is nearly abolished, indicating a stringent requirement for UL50 function in non-dividing neuronal cells [35]. This cell-type-dependent replication defect has profound implications for DEV pathogenesis, as it suggests that UL50 is essential for establishing or maintaining latency in sensory neurons. In vivo, ΔUL50 displays markedly reduced viral loads and attenuated virulence, with no mortality and milder clinical and histopathological changes compared to wild-type virus [35]. These findings establish UL50 as a critical factor for DEV pathogenicity, particularly in the context of neuronal infection and latency.

Viral DNA Replication and Packaging Machinery

The DEV genome encodes a complete repertoire of enzymes and factors required for viral DNA replication, including the DNA polymerase (UL30), which serves as the target for molecular diagnostics. PCR amplification of a 446-base pair fragment of the DNA polymerase gene has become the standard method for DEV detection and phylogenetic characterization, with field isolates from diverse geographic regions, including Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, China, and Egypt, demonstrating 99-100% nucleotide identity in this region [1, 15, 28, 39, 43]. The high conservation of this gene across temporally and geographically distinct isolates underscores its essential function and utility as a diagnostic target.

The UL15 gene, encoding the large subunit of the terminase complex responsible for viral DNA cleavage and packaging, exhibits a unique spliced architecture characteristic of alphaherpesviruses. DEV UL15 consists of two exons separated by a 3.5-kilobase intron and transcribes into two distinct transcripts: a 2.9-kilobase full-length UL15 encoding a 739-amino acid protein, and a 1.3-kilobase UL15.5 transcript encoding an N-terminally truncated 32-kilodalton product [32]. Both transcripts belong to the late kinetic class, as their expression is sensitive to cycloheximide and phosphonoacetic acid [32]. The UL15 protein contains conserved Walker A and B motifs homologous to the catalytic subunit of bacteriophage terminase, confirming its role in genome packaging [32]. The intracellular localization of UL15 and/or UL15.5 shifts from the cytoplasm at 6 hours post-infection to the nucleus by 12-24 hours post-infection, consistent with its function in nuclear capsid assembly and DNA encapsidation [32].

The UL16 protein, a conserved herpesviral factor involved in DNA packaging, virion assembly, and egress, has been characterized in DEV as a 362-amino acid protein encoded by 1,089 nucleotides [46]. UL16 localizes predominantly to the perinuclear cytoplasmic area and cytosol in infected DEFs, and its expression follows late gene kinetics, with mRNA transcripts peaking at 36 hours post-infection and protein expression reaching maximum levels at 48 hours post-infection [29, 46]. The interaction between UL16 and UL21, another conserved alphaherpesviral protein, has been confirmed through co-immunoprecipitation assays in both transfected HEK293T cells and DEV

Epidemiology and Global Distribution

Duck viral enteritis (DVE), caused by the anatid alphaherpesvirus 1 (duck enteritis virus, DEV), represents one of the most economically significant viral pathogens affecting domestic and wild waterfowl populations worldwide. The disease is classified as a notifiable infection by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) due to its capacity to cause epornitic mortality, its potential for rapid transboundary spread, and its substantial impact on commercial duck production systems, smallholder livelihoods, and the conservation of wild Anseriformes. Understanding the intricate epidemiological patterns and global distribution of DEV is fundamental to designing effective surveillance, control, and eradication strategies. The virus exhibits a complex epidemiological profile characterized by acute epornitic outbreaks, a carrier state in recovered birds, and a broad but variable host range across different geographic regions.

Global Geographic Distribution and Historical Context

Duck viral enteritis has been documented across all continents where waterfowl are raised or where wild migratory populations exist, with the notable exception of Australia and Oceania, where the virus has not been reported. The disease was first recognized in the Netherlands in 1923, and subsequent reports from North America, Europe, and Asia established its global footprint. In the United States, a significant epornitic occurred at the National Zoological Park in Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1975, affecting eight different species of ducks while sparing geese and swans, demonstrating the variable species susceptibility that characterizes DEV epidemiology [38]. This outbreak was controlled through the application of an experimental attenuated live-virus vaccine combined with rigorous sanitization procedures, providing an early demonstration of the feasibility of intervention strategies [38].

Contemporary epidemiological data indicate that Asia, particularly China, Bangladesh, India, and Vietnam, represents the epicenter of DEV activity, with the highest reported incidence and economic impact. The virus is endemic in these regions, where intensive duck farming systems and the presence of large, free-ranging duck populations in wetland ecosystems facilitate continuous viral circulation. In China, the disease occurs sporadically or epizootically, with insufficient vaccination coverage contributing to recurrent outbreaks [12]. The Chinese virulent strain (CHv) and the vaccine strain (VAC) represent two distinct pathogenic phenotypes that have been extensively characterized at the molecular level, with the CHv strain encoding a unique set of viral microRNAs that form a complex regulatory network distinct from that of the attenuated vaccine strain [6]. This molecular divergence has implications for understanding the emergence and maintenance of virulent lineages in endemic regions.

Regional Epidemiology: Asia

The epidemiological landscape of DVE in Asia is dominated by the South Asian and Southeast Asian regions, where duck farming is integral to agricultural economies and food security. Bangladesh, in particular, has emerged as a hotspot for DEV activity, with multiple studies documenting the genetic and phylogenetic characteristics of circulating strains. A comprehensive molecular survey conducted across five Haor (wetland) districts of Bangladesh, Kishoreganj, Netrokona, B. Baria, Habiganj, and Sunamganj, revealed an overall prevalence of 60% (90 of 150 samples) by PCR targeting the UL30 gene, with organ-wise prevalence highest in the liver (72%), followed by the intestine (64%) and oropharyngeal tissue (44%) [28]. This high prevalence in wetland ecosystems underscores the role of environmental contamination and waterborne transmission in sustaining endemicity. Phylogenetic analysis of Bangladeshi isolates demonstrated that they are evolutionarily closely related to Chinese isolates, suggesting a common ancestry and potential transboundary spread through migratory waterfowl or trade [28]. The complete genome sequencing of the Bangladeshi strain YLBRDP_11, isolated from a local outbreak in the Netrokona district, revealed a genome of 161,633 bp encoding 74 proteins with a GC content of 44.9%, providing a critical reference for understanding regional viral evolution [5].

Natural outbreaks in Bangladesh have been documented between February and June, with a study of three commercial duck farms in Netrokona, Mymensingh, and Nilphamari districts reporting 42.85% PCR positivity (18 of 42 samples) for DEV [1]. Phylogenetic analysis of these field isolates revealed 100% amino acid sequence similarity to isolates previously reported from Bangladesh, Vietnam, and China, indicating the circulation of a highly conserved viral lineage across these geographically contiguous regions [1]. The seasonal pattern of outbreaks, peaking in the spring and early summer months, correlates with the breeding season of ducks and the period of highest environmental viral load in water bodies.

In India, duck plague is a frequently reported infectious disease causing significant economic losses, with mortality rates ranging from 5% to 100% in domestic ducks [9]. The incubation period in domestic ducks ranges from 3 to 7 days, and the disease tends to establish latent infections in waterfowl, contributing to vaccination failures and persistent viral circulation [9]. A study of natural outbreaks in the Assam Province identified six wild-type isolates of DEV, with highly virulent isolates exhibiting a median duck infectivity dose (DID50) of 10² DID50/ml and a median tissue culture infectivity dose (TCID50) of 10⁶·³³ TCID50/ml, while low virulent strains had titers of 10 DID50/ml and 10⁴·⁸³ TCID50/ml, respectively [37]. This variation in virulence among circulating strains has important implications for disease severity and the design of effective vaccination programs. In Kerala, an Indian isolate designated DEV/India/IVRI-2016 was recovered from a natural outbreak, with sequence analysis of the DNA polymerase gene showing 99-100% homology with other DEV isolates, confirming the genetic stability of the virus across different geographic regions of India [43]. The development of nested PCR-based diagnostics for non-descriptive duck breeds in West Bengal has further refined the diagnostic capacity for DEV detection, with the nested PCR product (Accession No. HG425076) showing high homology with sequences available in GenBank [39].

Regional Epidemiology: Africa

The African continent, particularly Egypt, has experienced significant DEV outbreaks, with the disease posing a substantial threat to the growing duck industry. A comprehensive investigation of outbreaks occurring between 2016 and 2018 in Egypt revealed a mortality rate of 75% accompanied by a 40% drop in egg production among affected flocks [2]. This study disclosed important epidemiological variation in disease prevalence according to age, breed, season, and immune status. Notably, the disease was more prevalent among vaccinated flocks (34.8%) than in non-vaccinated ones (24.4%), a paradoxical finding that suggests either vaccine failure due to improper administration, the emergence of antigenic variants, or the presence of immunosuppressive co-infections [2]. The detection rate of DEV by PCR in this study was 27.9% (19 of 68 samples), with 42.6% of samples showing evidence of infection following virus isolation in embryonated duck eggs [2]. The presence of eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies in hepatocytes provided histopathological confirmation of DEV infection, underscoring the utility of integrated diagnostic approaches for epidemiological surveillance in resource-limited settings [2].

Regional Epidemiology: Europe and North America

In Europe and North America, DEV outbreaks are typically sporadic and often associated with zoological collections, waterfowl parks, or wild bird populations rather than commercial duck farms. The 1975 epornitic at the National Zoological Park in the United States remains a landmark event, demonstrating the vulnerability of captive waterfowl collections to DEV and the potential for rapid spread among multiple species [38]. The disease affected eight different duck species, while geese and swans were spared, highlighting the differential susceptibility that is a hallmark of DEV epidemiology [38]. In Europe, outbreaks have been reported in Germany and other countries, with phylogenetic analyses showing that European isolates cluster with those from Asia, the United States, and Egypt, indicating a global circulation pattern likely facilitated by migratory waterfowl [15]. The detection of DEV in Australian black swans (Cygnus atratus) at a safari park in Bangladesh further illustrates the susceptibility of non-native species and the role of captive collections in viral maintenance and spread [15].

Host Range and Species Susceptibility

The host range of DEV is primarily restricted to members of the order Anseriformes, encompassing ducks, geese, and swans, although susceptibility varies considerably among species and even among breeds within the same species. Domestic ducks of all ages and breeds are susceptible, but the severity of disease can vary. In Egypt, the disease was more prevalent among certain breeds, although specific breed susceptibility data remain limited [2]. Wild waterfowl serve as important reservoirs for DEV, and the virus can establish latent infections in recovered birds, leading to intermittent viral shedding and perpetuation of the infection cycle. The ability of DEV to establish latency in waterfowl is a critical epidemiological feature that complicates control efforts, as apparently healthy carrier birds can introduce the virus into naive populations [9]. The virus has also been detected in Australian black swans, demonstrating that species outside the typical duck and goose host range can be infected and succumb to disease [15].

Transmission Dynamics and Risk Factors

DEV is transmitted horizontally through direct contact between infected and susceptible birds, as well as through indirect contact with contaminated water, feed, and fomites. The virus is shed in high concentrations in feces, oral secretions, and other bodily fluids, and it can persist in aquatic environments for extended periods, facilitating waterborne transmission. The role of contaminated water in the epidemiology of DVE is particularly important in wetland ecosystems and in intensive duck farming systems where birds have access to shared water sources. The seasonal pattern of outbreaks, with peaks in spring and early summer, is likely related to increased viral shedding during the breeding season and higher environmental temperatures that may enhance viral stability in water.

Risk factors for DEV infection include age, breed, season, and immune status. In Egypt, the disease was more prevalent among vaccinated flocks than non-vaccinated ones, a finding that warrants further investigation into vaccine efficacy, vaccination protocols, and the potential for vaccine-induced immunosuppression [2]. The higher prevalence in vaccinated flocks may also reflect a tendency to vaccinate flocks in high-risk areas or during outbreak situations, creating a selection bias in the data. The mortality rate in domestic ducks can range from 5% to 100%, depending on the virulence of the circulating strain, the immune status of the flock, and the presence of secondary infections [9]. The highly virulent isolate E1, for example, causes 100% mortality in experimentally infected ducks, while the attenuated strain E74 has lost its pathogenicity entirely [41].

Molecular Epidemiology and Phylogenetic Insights

Phylogenetic analyses of DEV isolates from different geographic regions have revealed a high degree of genetic conservation, particularly in the DNA polymerase gene, which is commonly used for molecular characterization. Isolates from Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, India, Germany, the United States, and Egypt show 99-100% nucleotide sequence identity in this gene, indicating that DEV is a genetically stable virus with limited antigenic variation [1, 15, 43]. This genetic stability is consistent with the classification of DEV as a single serotype, which has important implications for vaccine development and the potential for cross-protection [47]. However, the complete genome sequencing of the Bangladeshi strain YLBRDP_11 revealed a genome of 161,633 bp, and comparative genomic analyses have identified regions of variability, such as the 5152 bp deletion in the UL region that distinguishes the attenuated E74 strain from the virulent E1 strain [5, 41]. This deletion results in the loss of the hypothetical protein, LORF5, UL55, and LORF4 genes, which are associated with virus virulence [41]. The identification of such virulence-associated genes provides molecular markers for epidemiological surveillance and the tracking of virulent versus attenuated strains in the field.

Economic Impact and Public Health Significance

The economic impact of DVE on the global duck industry is substantial, with losses attributable to high mortality, decreased egg production, and the costs associated with vaccination, biosecurity, and disease control. In Egypt, a 40% drop in egg production was recorded among affected flocks, representing a significant economic burden for producers [2]. In China, the disease causes huge economic losses to waterfowl farming, and the sporadic or epizootic occurrence of DVE due to insufficient vaccinations underscores the need for improved vaccine coverage and surveillance [12, 33]. The virus is not zoonotic and does not pose a direct threat to human health, but its impact on food security and livelihoods, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where duck farming is a critical source of protein and income, is profound.

Surveillance and Control Implications

The epidemiological data reviewed here highlight the need for enhanced surveillance systems that integrate molecular diagnostics, phylogenetic analysis, and risk factor assessment to monitor the circulation of DEV and detect emerging strains. The development of rapid, field-deployable diagnostic tools, such as the multienzyme isothermal rapid amplification (MIRA) assays and the colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (ICA), represents a significant advancement for real-time surveillance in resource-limited settings [12, 33]. The MIRA-based methods can detect DEV within 20-30 minutes with a limit of detection of 1 × 10¹ copies/μL, making them suitable for field deployment [33]. The ICA strip, which uses monoclonal antibodies against glycoprotein B and tegument protein UL47, can detect DEV in cloacal swab samples as early as three days post-infection with 80% concordance with PCR [12].

The global distribution of DEV, its ability to establish latent infections, and the high genetic conservation among isolates from different regions suggest that control strategies based on vaccination and biosecurity can be effective if implemented consistently. The development of recombinant DEV vector vaccines, which leverage the large genome capacity of DEV for the expression of foreign antigens, offers the potential for multivalent vaccines that can protect against multiple pathogens simultaneously [3, 11, 21]. However, the safety of these recombinant vaccines must be carefully evaluated, as demonstrated by the finding that a DEV-H5 vector vaccine caused 60% mortality in one-day-old chickens, indicating that further attenuation is required before such vaccines can be considered safe for use in chickens [34]. The epidemiological patterns of DEV underscore the importance of a One Health approach that integrates veterinary surveillance, wildlife management, and agricultural practices to mitigate the impact of this economically devastating pathogen on global waterfowl populations.

Diagnostic Approaches: Isolation, PCR, and Serology

The precise and timely diagnosis of Duck Viral Enteritis (DVE), caused by Anatid alphaherpesvirus-1 (duck enteritis virus, DEV), is paramount for implementing effective quarantine measures, informing vaccination strategies, and mitigating the substantial economic losses inflicted upon domestic and wild waterfowl populations worldwide. The diagnostic armamentarium for DVE encompasses a triad of classical and molecular methodologies: virus isolation in embryonated eggs and cell culture, nucleic acid detection via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and its modern isothermal variants, and serological surveillance employing virus neutralization and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). The selection and interpretation of these assays are dictated by the stage of infection, the clinical objective, whether acute outbreak confirmation, latent carrier detection, or seroepidemiological survey, and the laboratory resources available. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes these methods as fundamental to the control of notifiable diseases in waterfowl, and their rigorous application has been instrumental in characterizing DEV epizootics across Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America.

Virus Isolation: The Gold Standard for Definitive Diagnosis

Virus isolation remains the definitive diagnostic approach for DVE, providing a biological substrate for subsequent antigenic, genomic, and pathogenic characterization. The isolation of DEV is most successfully achieved from target organs exhibiting characteristic pathological lesions, particularly the liver, spleen, and intestinal mucosa. The classical protocol involves the preparation of a 10% (w/v) tissue homogenate in sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) supplemented with antibiotics to curtail bacterial contamination, followed by clarification via centrifugation [1, 15]. The clarified supernatant is then inoculated into the embryonated duck eggs, the gold-standard in ovo system for DEV propagation. Specific-pathogen-free (SPF) embryonated duck eggs, aged 9–13 days, are inoculated via the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) route. Following inoculation, embryos are incubated at 37°C and candled daily. The hallmark of a successful DEV isolation is the death of the embryo between 3–5 days post-infection (dpi), accompanied by characteristic gross lesions including generalized congestion, cutaneous hemorrhages, and pronounced dwarfism of the embryo [1, 2]. Examination of the CAM reveals pathognomonic changes: diffuse thickening, edema, and the formation of discrete, opaque, white necrotic pocks or plaques. Histopathological examination of the CAM and infected embryo tissues reveals the presence of eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies (IN/IBs) within hepatocytes and epithelial cells, a cytopathological hallmark of herpesvirus replication [2, 39]. These inclusions are Cowdry type A bodies, representing sites of viral replication and capsid assembly, and their identification provides strong presumptive evidence of DEV infection. However, isolation success rates can be variable, with studies reporting recovery in 42.6% to 48% of samples from field outbreaks, a figure influenced by viral load, tissue autolysis, and the presence of maternal antibodies [1, 2].

While embryonated duck eggs are the most sensitive system, DEV can also be propagated in primary cell cultures derived from duck embryos, such as duck embryo fibroblast (DEF) cells or duck embryo kidney cells, as well as in chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEFs) [37, 50]. In cell culture, the characteristic cytopathic effect (CPE) of DEV manifests as syncytia formation (cell-to-cell fusion), cellular rounding, and eventual detachment from the monolayer, typically observable within 24–72 hours post-infection [37, 50]. The progression of CPE allows for the titration of viral infectivity, often expressed as tissue culture infectious dose 50 (TCID₅₀) per mL. High titers, exceeding 10⁶ TCID₅₀/mL, are commonly achieved with virulent isolates in DEFs, facilitating subsequent molecular characterization and antigen preparation [37]. The isolation of DEV, while definitive, is time-consuming (requiring 3–7 days), demands specialized facilities for egg incubation and cell culture, and requires the maintenance of live virus, which poses biosecurity risks. Consequently, molecular methods have largely supplanted isolation for routine rapid diagnosis, though isolation remains indispensable for obtaining live virus for vaccine development, pathogenesis studies, and archival reference purposes.

Polymerase Chain Reaction and Advanced Molecular Detection

The advent of PCR has revolutionized the diagnosis of DVE, offering unparalleled sensitivity, specificity, and speed. The most widely adopted molecular target for DEV detection is the DNA polymerase gene (UL30), a highly conserved region among alphaherpesviruses. A conventional PCR assay targeting a 446-base pair (bp) fragment of this gene has been extensively validated and is considered a standard diagnostic tool. Numerous studies across Bangladesh, Egypt, India, and China have documented its efficacy, with detection rates in clinical samples ranging from 27.9% to 60%, depending on the outbreak severity and sample type [1, 2, 28, 43]. The assay demonstrates robust specificity, amplifying the target exclusively from DEV and not from other common waterfowl pathogens such as duck hepatitis A virus, avian influenza virus, or Riemerella anatipestifer [2]. For enhanced sensitivity, particularly in samples with low viral loads, such as those from latent infections or subclinical carriers, nested PCR strategies have been developed. By employing two successive PCR amplifications with internal primer sets, nested PCR targeting the DNA polymerase gene can detect femtogram quantities of viral DNA, providing a "double confirmatory" diagnostic capability [39]. This approach has proven especially valuable for detecting DEV in cloacal swabs and environmental samples where viral shedding may be minimal.

Beyond conventional end-point PCR, real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) has emerged as the method of choice for not only detection but also quantification of viral load. TaqMan probe-based qPCR assays targeting the UL30 or UL55 genes allow for the rapid, closed-tube quantification of viral genomes, with a dynamic range spanning several orders of magnitude [30, 49]. This technique is critical for understanding viral kinetics in experimental infections, evaluating the efficacy of antiviral compounds (e.g., resveratrol or chlorogenic acid), and monitoring viral clearance post-vaccination [49, 50]. The use of a standard curve generated from a plasmid containing the target gene permits absolute quantification, enabling researchers to correlate viral copy number with disease severity and organ tropism.

In response to the need for rapid, point-of-care diagnostics in resource-limited field settings, isothermal amplification technologies have been adapted for DEV detection. Multienzyme isothermal rapid amplification (MIRA) represents a significant advancement. The basic MIRA assay can amplify DEV DNA to detectable levels within 30 minutes at a constant temperature of 35°C, requiring only a simple heat block or water bath [33]. The reaction is highly specific, showing no cross-reactivity with fowl adenovirus, goose astrovirus, or duck circovirus. To further enhance usability, MIRA has been combined with quantitative PCR (MIRA-qPCR) or lateral flow dipsticks (MIRA-LFD). The MIRA-LFD format is particularly transformative for field deployment, as it requires no specialized instrumentation; the amplification product is simply applied to a pre-coated dipstick, and a visible line indicates a positive result within 20 minutes [33]. The limit of detection for both MIRA-qPCR and MIRA-LFD is remarkably low, approximately 10¹ copies/μL, rivaling that of conventional qPCR. Similarly, colloidal gold-based immunochromatographic assays (ICAs) utilizing monoclonal antibodies against the DEV glycoprotein B (gB) or tegument protein UL47 have been developed. These ICAs can detect DEV antigens in cloacal swabs and tissue homogenates within 15 minutes, achieving an 80–100% concordance with PCR, depending on the sample matrix [12]. These rapid tests hold immense promise for on-farm surveillance, outbreak investigation, and border quarantine inspections, empowering livestock officers to make immediate management decisions.

Serological Approaches: Virus Neutralization and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay

Serological assays are essential for determining the immune status of waterfowl populations, evaluating vaccine efficacy, and conducting seroepidemiological surveys to map the distribution of DEV. The historical gold standard for detecting DEV-specific antibodies is the virus neutralization test (VNT). The VNT, typically performed as a constant virus–varying serum (beta) method, quantifies the ability of serum antibodies to neutralize a standard dose of infectious DEV in DEF cells or embryonated duck eggs. The endpoint is expressed as the log2 antibody titre, representing the highest serum dilution that completely inhibits viral CPE or embryo mortality. In vaccinated ducks, VNT titers of 3.33 ± 0.21 log2 have been observed following a prime-boost in ovo vaccination regimen, indicating a moderate humoral response [48]. However, the VNT is labor-intensive, requires cell culture facilities and live virus, and takes 3–5 days to complete. Furthermore, early studies demonstrated that neutralizing antibody levels do not always correlate with protective immunity, as ducks with moderate titers could still succumb to challenge when stressed or co-infected with secondary pathogens [47]. This phenomenon is attributed to the cell-to-cell spread of DEV, which can partially evade humoral immunity, highlighting the role of cell-mediated immunity in protection.

To overcome the limitations of VNT, indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (i-ELISAs) have been developed using recombinant DEV proteins as coating antigens. These assays are rapid, amenable to high-throughput screening, and do not require live virus, making them safer and more accessible. The membrane glycoprotein I (gI, encoded by US7) has proven to be an effective antigen for i-ELISA. Recombinant gI protein, expressed in E. coli and purified by nickel affinity chromatography, retains its antigenicity and reliably discriminates between DEV-positive, negative, and vaccinated duck sera [9]. Similarly, the truncated glycoprotein K (gK) has been expressed in prokaryotic systems and shown to possess strong antigenic characteristics, binding specifically to anti-DEV antibodies in an i-ELISA format [31]. These recombinant antigen-based ELISAs offer a standardized, reproducible, and cost-effective means for large-scale serosurveillance programs, which are critical for identifying flocks with prior exposure and for assessing the duration of vaccine-induced immunity. Additionally, the indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT), using DEV-infected DEF cells fixed on slides, provides a rapid qualitative or semi-quantitative assessment of antibody presence, though it is less suitable for large-scale screening than ELISA [37]. Collectively, these serological tools, when combined with molecular detection and virus isolation, provide a comprehensive diagnostic framework for the control and eventual eradication of duck viral enteritis.

Immunology and Control Strategies

The interplay between duck enteritis virus (DEV) and the host immune system is a complex, multi-layered battleground that dictates the outcome of infection, ranging from rapid, fatal disease to lifelong latency. Understanding these immunological mechanisms is not merely an academic exercise; it is the cornerstone upon which rational control strategies, including vaccination, biosecurity, and antiviral interventions, are built. DEV, as a member of the Alphaherpesvirinae subfamily, has evolved a sophisticated arsenal of immunomodulatory proteins to subvert host defenses, while the host, in turn, has developed innate sensors and adaptive responses to counter the viral onslaught. This section provides an exhaustive analysis of these immunological dynamics and the current and emerging strategies employed to control this economically devastating pathogen.

Innate Immune Sensing and Antiviral Signaling

The initial host defense against DEV relies on pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) that detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). For a DNA virus like DEV, the cytosolic DNA sensor cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) is a critical sentinel. Upon binding viral DNA, cGAS catalyzes the synthesis of 2'3'-cGAMP, which activates the adaptor protein stimulator of interferon genes (STING), culminating in the production of type I interferons (IFNs), particularly IFN-β [10]. However, DEV has evolved multiple strategies to dismantle this pathway. A seminal study identified that DEV encodes at least five viral proteins, UL41, US3, UL28, UL53, and UL24, that can inhibit the cGAS-STING pathway [10]. Among these, the tegument protein UL41 exhibits the most potent inhibitory effect by selectively downregulating the expression of interferon regulatory factor 7 (IRF7) through a reduction in its mRNA accumulation, thereby crippling the downstream IFN-β response [10]. This is a critical immune evasion tactic, as IRF7 is a master regulator of type I IFN induction.

Beyond cGAS-STING, the RIG-I-like receptor (RLR) family, traditionally associated with RNA virus sensing, also plays a significant role in restricting DEV. Duck RIG-I (duRIG-I) expression is upregulated upon DEV infection, and its overexpression significantly inhibits viral replication by activating the JAK-STAT signaling pathway in a STAT1-dependent manner [18]. Similarly, melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) restricts DEV growth, and its antiviral activity is critically modulated by laboratory of genetics and physiology 2 (LGP2). LGP2 acts as a concentration-dependent switch, enhancing MDA5-mediated signaling at lower concentrations but interfering at higher levels, adding a layer of regulatory complexity to the anti-DEV response [19]. The fact that a DNA virus triggers RLR pathways suggests that DEV infection may generate RNA intermediates or that these sensors have broader ligand specificity than previously appreciated.

Viral Countermeasures: Antagonism of Interferon Signaling

To establish a productive infection, DEV must neutralize the antiviral state induced by IFNs. The virus employs a multi-pronged attack on the IFN signaling cascade. The tegument protein VP16 is a potent antagonist of IFN-β-mediated immunity. VP16 directly binds to duck IRF7 (duIRF7) and inhibits its activity, thereby blocking the activation of the IFN-β promoter and the subsequent transcription of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) such as Mx and OASL [17]. This antagonism is dependent on the N-terminal domain of VP16 (aa 1-200) [17].

Further downstream, the UL24 protein has emerged as a master manipulator of the innate immune response. UL24 not only inhibits the activity of the IFN-β promoter induced by poly(I:C) but also broadly suppresses the mRNA levels of multiple immune signaling molecules, including RIG-I, MDA5, MAVS, cGAS, STING, TBK1, and IRF7 [25]. The mechanism involves the induction of K48/K63-linked polyubiquitination of IRF7, targeting it for proteasomal degradation [25]. This dual mechanism, transcriptional suppression and post-translational degradation, ensures a robust blockade of the IFN axis. The US10 protein also plays a role in immune modulation, as its deletion leads to significant upregulation of ISGs (Mx, OASL) and cytokines (IL-4, IL-6, IL-10), suggesting that US10 normally functions to suppress these transcripts to facilitate viral replication [23].

The Role of Apoptosis and Cellular Stress

DEV infection profoundly alters host cell physiology, including the induction of programmed cell death and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. Infection with the Chinese standard challenge strain (DEV-CSC) suppresses cell viability and induces apoptosis in duck embryo fibroblasts (DEFs) via the regulation of intracellular Ca²⁺ concentration [36]. This process is linked to the upregulation of ER stress markers, including C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP), glucose regulatory protein 78 (GRP78), and activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) [36]. The interplay between apoptosis and viral replication is complex; while apoptosis can be a host defense mechanism to limit viral spread, DEV may manipulate this process to facilitate viral egress or to eliminate immune cells. The viral capsid protein VP26 interacts with the host actin–myosin II network, specifically the non-muscle myosin IIA heavy chain (MYH9), and this interaction is crucial for efficient viral proliferation [4]. Inhibition of actin polymerization or myosin II ATPase activity significantly reduces DEV titers both in vitro and in vivo, highlighting the cytoskeleton as a critical host factor for DEV replication and a potential target for antiviral intervention [4].

Adaptive Immunity and Humoral Responses

The adaptive immune response, particularly the humoral arm, is essential for controlling DEV infection and for the efficacy of vaccination. Neutralizing antibodies are directed against viral envelope glycoproteins, which are critical for viral entry and cell-to-cell spread. The glycoprotein B (gB) and the tegument protein UL47 have been used as targets for monoclonal antibody generation and diagnostic assay development [12]. Glycoprotein I (gI) is another immunodominant protein that plays a role in virion sorting and cell-cell spread, and its recombinant form has been successfully used in an indirect ELISA for serosurveillance [9]. The glycoprotein K (gK) has also shown promise as a diagnostic antigen due to its good reactivity and specificity [31].

However, the relationship between neutralizing antibody titers and protection is not absolute. Early studies demonstrated that waterfowl with moderate levels of neutralizing antibodies could still succumb to virulent challenge, especially in the presence of secondary microbial invaders [47]. This suggests that cell-mediated immunity and the overall health status of the bird are critical co-determinants of protection. A marked anamnestic serologic response is observed upon challenge with virulent virus in previously vaccinated or exposed birds, indicating the presence of robust immunological memory [47].

Control Strategies: Vaccination

Vaccination remains the most effective and economically viable strategy for controlling duck viral enteritis in endemic regions. The current landscape of DEV vaccines is rapidly evolving, moving from traditional live-attenuated strains to sophisticated recombinant vector platforms.

Live-Attenuated Vaccines: The cornerstone of DVE control has been the use of live-attenuated vaccines, such as the Holland strain and the Chinese C-KCE strain. These vaccines are typically produced by serial passage in embryonated chicken eggs or cell culture. For instance, the attenuated strain E74 was developed by serially passaging a virulent strain E1 on primary chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEFs) [41]. Genomic analysis revealed that attenuation was associated with a 5,152 bp deletion in the UL region, resulting in the loss of the hypothetical protein, LORF5, UL55, and LORF4 genes [41]. This deletion not only abolished virulence but also created a flexible insertion site for exogenous genes, making it an ideal backbone for recombinant vaccines [11, 41]. The traditional vaccine production in embryonated chicken eggs has bottlenecks, prompting research into cell culture-based production using indigenous strains [40, 43]. A novel approach involves in ovo vaccination, where the vaccine virus is administered directly into duck embryos. This technique has been successfully demonstrated using a duck embryo fibroblast-passaged vaccine virus, resulting in a detectable immune response (3.33±0.21 Log₂ antibody titre) post-hatch [48].

Recombinant DEV Vector Vaccines: The large genome of DEV (~158-162 kbp) with multiple non-essential regions makes it an exceptional candidate for a live viral vector to deliver protective antigens from other pathogens [3, 5]. This approach allows for the development of multivalent vaccines that can protect against DEV and other major duck diseases simultaneously.

• Construction Platforms: The construction of recombinant DEV has been revolutionized by modern genetic tools. The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 system, particularly the non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) pathway, allows for rapid and efficient insertion of foreign genes into the DEV genome without the need for homologous arms [11, 21, 22]. The Cre-Lox system is often used in tandem to remove selection markers like GFP, leaving only the antigen of interest [22]. Bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) technology has also been instrumental, enabling the stable maintenance and manipulation of the entire DEV genome in E. coli before reconstitution in cell culture [44, 51].

• Bivalent and Trivalent Vaccines: Numerous recombinant DEV vaccines have been developed. A trivalent vaccine (C-KCE-HA/PrM-E) expressing the hemagglutinin (HA) of H5N1 avian influenza virus and the pre-membrane and envelope proteins (PrM/E) of duck Tembusu virus (DTMUV) was constructed using CRISPR/Cas9. A single dose conferred solid protection against all three viruses (H5N1, DTMUV, and DEV) in ducks [21]. Similarly, a recombinant DEV expressing the VP0 capsid protein of duck hepatitis A virus type 1 (DHAV-1) provided full protection against DEV and 70% protection against DHAV-1 [16]. Another recombinant, rC-KCE-2VP1, co-expressing VP1 from both DHAV-1 and DHAV-3, induced potent humoral and cellular responses and completely protected ducks against both hepatitis virus types [26]. A bivalent vaccine candidate against DEV and Pasteurella multocida (fowl cholera) has also been generated by inserting the ompH gene into the UL55-LORF11 or UL44-44.5 loci [11].

• Safety Considerations: While DEV vectors are highly promising, safety must be rigorously evaluated, especially in non-target species. A DEV-vectored vaccine expressing the H5 HA of avian influenza (DEV-H5) caused 60% mortality in one-day-old chickens, with virus shedding and pathological lesions, indicating that the vector was insufficiently attenuated for this species [34]. This underscores the need for careful vector design and host-range testing.

Control Strategies: Diagnostics and Biosecurity

Rapid and accurate diagnosis is the first line of defense in controlling outbreaks. Traditional methods include virus isolation in embryonated duck eggs via the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) route, which yields characteristic lesions such as embryo dwarfism and degenerated CAM blood vessels [1, 2, 15, 43]. Histopathological examination revealing eosinophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies in hepatocytes and epithelial cells remains a hallmark of infection [2, 37].

Molecular Diagnostics: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting the DNA polymerase (UL30) gene is the gold standard for confirmation, with a 446 bp amplicon being widely used [1, 15, 39, 43]. Nested PCR assays have been developed to enhance sensitivity for detecting low viral loads [39]. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) allows for viral load quantification [29, 30]. More recently, multienzyme isothermal rapid amplification (MIRA) assays have been established for field-deployable detection. MIRA-based methods, including MIRA-qPCR and MIRA-lateral flow dipstick (MIRA-LFD), can detect DEV within 20-30 minutes at a constant temperature (35°C) with a limit of detection of 1×10¹ copies/μL, requiring no specialized equipment for the LFD format [33].

Serological and Antigen Detection: Indirect ELISAs using recombinant proteins like gI and truncated gK provide reliable tools for serosurveillance to monitor flock immunity and vaccine efficacy [9, 31]. For rapid antigen detection, a colloidal gold immunochromatographic assay (ICA) using monoclonal antibodies against gB and UL47 has been developed. This strip test can detect DEV in cloacal swabs and tissue homogenates within 15 minutes, showing 100% concordance with PCR for tissue samples from dead ducks [12].

Biosecurity and Management: Given that DEV can establish latent infections and be shed by recovered birds, strict biosecurity is paramount. Control measures include the isolation of newly introduced birds, all-in/all-out management practices, and the separation of domestic ducks from wild waterfowl, which serve as a natural reservoir [2, 38]. In the event of an outbreak, depopulation of infected flocks, thorough cleaning and disinfection, and quarantine are essential to prevent spread [38]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes DVE as a notifiable disease due to its potential for rapid spread and high mortality, emphasizing the need for robust surveillance and reporting systems in affected regions.

Antiviral Interventions

While vaccination is the primary control measure, antiviral compounds offer potential therapeutic options, particularly in valuable breeding stock or during outbreaks. Resveratrol, a natural phytoalexin, inhibits DEV replication in vitro in a dose-dependent manner (IC₅₀ = 3.85 μg/mL) by suppressing the expression of immediate-early viral proteins during the first 8 hours of infection [50]. Chlorogenic acid, the active component of honeysuckle, has also demonstrated efficacy. Pre-treatment of DEFs with chlorogenic acid significantly reduces DEV load by regulating the NF-κB signaling pathway, and in vivo treatment alleviates pathological damage in lymphoid organs [49]. The myosin II ATPase inhibitor (-)-Blebbistatin has shown potent antiviral activity both in vitro and in vivo by disrupting the actin–myosin II network that DEV hijacks for proliferation [4]. These compounds, while not yet licensed for widespread use in poultry, represent promising leads for future antiviral development.

References

[1] Islam J, Islam M, Rahman M, Bose P, Islam M, Khatun M. Isolation and characterization of duck viral enteritis (Duck plague) virus from ducks in field outbreaks in Bangladesh. Journal of Research in Veterinary Sciences. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/jrvs.20240102065916

[2] Abdullatif T, Ghanem I, ElBakrey RM. DUCK VIRAL ENTERITIS IN EGYPT: ISOLATION AND DETECTION OF THE CIRCULATING VIRUS DURING OUTBREAKS FROM 2016-2018. Slovenian Veterinary Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26873/svr-1424-2021

[3] Jia W, Wang A, Wu Z, Lei X, Cheng Y, Zhu S. Current status of recombinant duck enteritis virus vector vaccine research. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1453150

[4] Chen L, Zhu Y, Yun T, Ye W, Ni Z, Hua J, et al.. Proteomic Screening for Cellular Targets of the Duck Enteritis Virus Protein VP26 Reveals That the Host Actin–Myosin II Network Regulates the Proliferation of the Virus. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26189108

[5] Yasmin L, Siddique MS, Islam T, Rahman MH, Rahman M, Ghosh S, et al.. Complete genome sequence of a virulent duck enteritis virus isolated from Northern part of Bangladesh. Microbiology Resource Announcements. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mra.00774-25

[6] Wu X, Jia R, Zhou J, Wang M, Chen S, Liu M, et al.. Virulent duck enteritis virus infected DEF cells generate a unique pattern of viral microRNAs and a novel set of host microRNAs. BMC Veterinary Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1468-2

[7] Xixia H, Wang M, Chen S, Jia R, Zhu D, Liu M, et al.. The duck enteritis virus early protein, UL13, found in both nucleus and cytoplasm, influences viral replication in cell culture. Poultry Science. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex043

[8] Liu C, Cheng A, Wang M, Chen S, Jia R, Zhu D, et al.. Regulation of viral gene expression by duck enteritis virus UL54. Scientific Reports. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01161-0

[9] Sangam A, Chander V, Bindu S, Dandapat S, Singh M, Sharma GK, et al.. Expression of Immunodominant gI Protein of Duck Enteritis Virus and its Evaluation for ELISA. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.b-5286

[10] Gao L, Liu R, Yang F, Li X, Liu C, Qi X, et al.. Duck Enteritis Virus Inhibits the cGAS-STING DNA-Sensing Pathway To Evade the Innate Immune Response. Journal of Virology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01578-22

[11] Apinda N, Yao Y, Zhang Y, Reddy VR, Chang P, Nair V, et al.. CRISPR/Cas9 Editing of Duck Enteritis Virus Genome for the Construction of a Recombinant Vaccine Vector Expressing ompH Gene of Pasteurella multocida in Two Novel Insertion Sites. Vaccines. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050686

[12] Liu F, Cao Y, Yan M, Sun M, Zhang Q, Wang J, et al.. Development of a Colloidal Gold Immunochromatographic Assay for Duck Enteritis Virus Detection Using Monoclonal Antibodies. Pathogens. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10030365

[13] Chen L, Ni Z, Hua J, Ye W, Liu K, Yun T, et al.. Proteomic analysis of host cellular proteins co-immunoprecipitated with duck enteritis virus gC.. Journal of Proteomics. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2021.104281

[14] Chen L, Ni Z, Hua J, Ye W, Liu K, Yun T, et al.. Simultaneous Tracking of Capsid VP26, Envelope Protein gC Localization in Living Cells Infected with Double Fluorescent Duck Enteritis Virus.. Virus Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198393

[15] Islam M, Islam J, Islam M, Ahamed T, Islam M, Khatun M, et al.. Duck virus enteritis (duck plague) outbreak in an Australian black swan (Cygnus atratus) flock at safari park in Bangladesh: A case report. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2021.h545

[16] Niu Y, Liu B, Sun C, Zhao L, Chen H. Construction of the recombinant duck enteritis virus delivering capsid protein VP0 of the duck hepatitis A virus.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108837

[17] Li Y, Wang M, Cheng A, Jia R, Yang Q, Chen S, et al.. Duck Enteritis Virus VP16 Antagonizes IFN-β-Mediated Antiviral Innate Immunity. Journal of Immunological Research. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9630452

[18] Huo H, Wang Y, Wang D, Wang Y, Chen X, Zhao L, et al.. Duck RIG-I restricts duck enteritis virus infection.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.01.014

[19] Huo H, Zhao L, Wang D, Chen X, Chen H. LGP2 plays a critical role in MDA5-mediated antiviral activity against duck enteritis virus.. Molecular Immunology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2019.10.006

[20] Yang L, Hu X, Cheng A, Wang M, Jia R, Yang Q, et al.. Two nuclear localization signals regulate intracellular localization of the duck enteritis virus UL13 protein. Poultry Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.069

[21] Zou Z, Huang K, Wei Y, Chen H, Liu Z, Jin M. Construction of a highly efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated duck enteritis virus-based vaccine against H5N1 avian influenza virus and duck Tembusu virus infection. Scientific Reports. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01554-1

[22] Chang P, Yao Y, Tang N, Sadeyen J, Sealy J, Clements AL, et al.. The Application of NHEJ-CRISPR/Cas9 and Cre-Lox System in the Generation of Bivalent Duck Enteritis Virus Vaccine against Avian Influenza Virus. Viruses. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v10020081

[23] Ma Y, Zeng Q, Wang M, Cheng A, Jia R, Yang Q, et al.. US10 Protein Is Crucial but not Indispensable for Duck Enteritis Virus Infection in Vitro. Scientific Reports. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34503-7

[24] Feng D, Cui M, Jia R, Liu S, Wang M, Zhu D, et al.. Co-localization of and interaction between duck enteritis virus glycoprotein H and L. BMC Veterinary Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1553-6

[25] Ruan P, Chen Y, Wang M, Cheng A, Yang Q, Tian B, et al.. Duck plague virus UL24 protein initiates K48/K63-linked IRF7 polyubiquitination to antagonize the innate immune response. Poultry Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104378

[26] Zou Z, Ma J, Huang K, Chen H, Liu Z, Jin M. Live Attenuated Vaccine Based on Duck Enteritis Virus against Duck Hepatitis A Virus Types 1 and 3. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01613

[27] Liu C, Cheng A, Wang M, Chen S, Jia R, Zhu D, et al.. Duck enteritis virus UL54 is an IE protein primarily located in the nucleus. Virology Journal. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-015-0424-z

[28] Khan K, Islam M, Sabuj AAM, Bashar MA, Islam M, Hossain M, et al.. Molecular characterization of duck plague virus from selected Haor areas of Bangladesh. Open Veterinary Journal. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v11i1.8

[29] He Q, Cheng A, Wang M, Xiang J, Zhu D, Zhou Y, et al.. Replication kinetics of duck enteritis virus UL16 gene in vitro. Virology Journal. 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-9-281

[30] Wu Y, Cheng A, Wang M, Zhang S, Zhu D, Jia R, et al.. Establishment of real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay for transcriptional analysis of duck enteritis virus UL55 gene. Virology Journal. 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-8-266

[31] Zhang S, Ma G, Xiang J, Cheng A, Wang M, Zhu D, et al.. Expressing gK gene of duck enteritis virus guided by bioinformatics and its applied prospect in diagnosis. Virology Journal. 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-7-168

[32] Zhu H, Li H, Han Z, Shao Y, Wang Y, Kong X. Identification of a spliced gene from duck enteritis virus encoding a protein homologous to UL15 of herpes simplex virus 1. Virology Journal. 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-8-156

[33] Dai Y, Hu X, Zhong Y, Chen L, Wang J, Yin D, et al.. Rapid Detection of Duck Enteritis Virus with MIRA, MIRA–qPCR, and MIRA–LFD Assays. Pathogens. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14100980

[34] Abdulrahim Y, You Y, Wang L, Bi Z, Xie L, Chen S, et al.. Evaluation of Tissue Tropism and Horizontal Transmission of a Duck Enteritis Virus Vectored Vaccine in One-Day-Old Chicken. Viruses. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v16111681

[35] Huo S, Chen L, Bao E, Ni Z, Ye W, Hua J, et al.. Functional characterization of UL50 gene reveals its essential role in duck enteritis virus replication and pathogenesis. Veterinary Quarterly. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2026.2649575

[36] Zhang Y, Wang X, Hu A, Wu Y, Zhang P, Yang X, et al.. Duck enteritis virus infection suppresses viability and induces apoptosis and endoplasmic reticulum stress in duck embryo fibroblast cells via the regulation of Ca2+. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.19-0584

[37] Sarmah H, Shah M, Pathak M, Barman N, Koul M, Gupta A, et al.. Pathodynamics of Circulating Strains of Duck Enteritis Virus: A Step Forward to Understand Its Pathogenesis. Avian diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086-64.2.166

[38] Montali R, Bush M, Greenwell G. An epornitic of duck viral enteritis in a zoological park.. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.1976.169.09.954

[39] Mandal P, Mukhopadhayay S, Pradhan S, Mondal S, Jana C, Patra NC, et al.. Development of nested polymerase chain reaction-based diagnosis of duck enteritis virus and detection of DNA polymerase gene from non-descriptive duck breeds of West Bengal, India. Veterinary World. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2017.336-341

[40] Panickan S. Adaptation of Virulent Field Isolate of Duck Plague Virus (DPV) in Embryonated Chicken Eggs. . 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2021.1002.235

[41] Shi X, Zhuang H, Shuo D, Li L, Pan S, Wu Z, et al.. Pathogenicity Evaluation and Virulence Gene Identification of an Attenuated Duck Enteritis Virus. Microorganisms. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13112537

[42] Chen S, Cheng A, Wang M, Peng X. Detection of apoptosis induced by new type gosling viral enteritis virus in vitro through fluorescein annexin V-FITC/PI double labeling.. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/WJG.14.2174

[43] Panickan S, Dandapat S, Kumar J, Mahendran M, Nandi S, Punnoose P. Molecular Characterization and Pathogenicity of an Indian Isolate of Duck Enteritis Virus Recovered From a Natural Outbreak. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.b-4006

[44] Wu Y, Li Y, Wang M, Sun K, Jia R, Chen S, et al.. Preliminary study of the UL55 gene based on infectious Chinese virulent duck enteritis virus bacterial artificial chromosome clone. Virology Journal. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-017-0748-y

[45] Gao X, Jia R, Wang M, Yang Q, Chen S, Liu M, et al.. Duck enteritis virus (DEV) UL54 protein, a novel partner, interacts with DEV UL24 protein. Virology Journal. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-017-0830-5

[46] He Q, Yang Q, Cheng A, Wang M, Xiang J, Zhu D, et al.. Expression and characterization of UL16 gene from duck enteritis virus. Virology Journal. 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-8-413

[47] Ah D. Duck viral enteritis (duck plague) characteristics and immune response of the host.. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.1975.36.04.535

[48] Sarmah R, Subudhi PK, Dutta TK, Roychoudhury P, Gali J, Singh Y. In ovo Vaccination in Ducks against Duck Virus Enteritis. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.b-5214

[49] Yang Y, Zhang Q, Cai H, Feng Y, Wen A, Yang Y, et al.. RNA-seq analysis of chlorogenic acid intervention in duck embryo fibroblasts infected with duck plague virus. Virology Journal. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-024-02312-2

[50] Xu J, Yin Z, Li L, Cheng A, Jia R, Song X, et al.. Inhibitory Effect of Resveratrol against Duck Enteritis Virus In Vitro. PLoS ONE. 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065213

[51] Chen L, Yu B, Hua J, Ye W, Ni Z, Yun T, et al.. Construction of a full-length infectious bacterial artificial chromosome clone of duck enteritis virus vaccine strain. Virology Journal. 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-10-328