Bovine Leukemia Virus

Overview and Taxonomy of Bovine Leukemia Virus

Bovine leukemia virus (BLV) is a complex, exogenous retrovirus of profound veterinary and economic significance, recognized as the etiological agent of enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL), the most consequential neoplastic disease of cattle worldwide [1-3]. As a member of the Retroviridae family, BLV is classified within the subfamily Orthoretrovirinae and the genus Deltaretrovirus [2, 22]. This taxonomic assignment places it in close phylogenetic and virological kinship with the human T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV-1 and HTLV-2), with which it shares a conserved genomic organization, a lifelong persistent infection strategy in the host, and the capacity to induce lymphoproliferative malignancies after an extended latency period [2, 22, 29]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE) lists EBL as a notifiable disease with significant implications for international trade in cattle and bovine products, underscoring its status as a pathogen of critical concern to global livestock health and biosecurity.

Taxonomic Classification and Virion Structure

The complete BLV virion is an enveloped, spherical particle approximately 80–120 nm in diameter [2]. The viral genome is composed of a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA molecule of roughly 8.7 kilobases, which must be reverse-transcribed into double-stranded DNA by the viral reverse transcriptase enzyme before integration into the host cell genome as a provirus [2, 3]. The mature virion is structured with an outer lipid envelope derived from the host cell membrane, studded with viral glycoprotein spikes. The envelope glycoproteins, translated as a precursor polyprotein (Pr72Env), are proteolytically cleaved into the surface glycoprotein gp51 (SU) and the transmembrane glycoprotein gp30 (TM) [2, 3]. These two subunits remain non-covalently associated; gp51 mediates the initial attachment of the virus to the host cell receptor, while gp30 anchors the complex within the viral envelope and facilitates the membrane fusion required for entry [2]. Internally, the virion contains a characteristic icosahedral capsid composed primarily of the p24 protein (CA), ensheathing the viral RNA genome in complex with the nucleocapsid protein p12 (NC) and associated enzymes (reverse transcriptase, integrase, and protease) [2]. The matrix protein p15 (MA) lies between the capsid and the inner leaflet of the lipid envelope, providing structural integrity [2].

Genomic Organization and Gene Functions

The BLV genome is flanked at both ends by identical long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences, which contain the promoter, enhancer, and polyadenylation signals essential for proviral transcription [2, 27]. The structural and enzymatic genes are arranged in a canonical retroviral order: 5'-LTR-gag-pro-pol-env-LTR-3' [2]. The gag gene encodes the core structural proteins, p24 (CA), p15 (MA), and p12 (NC), processed from a precursor polyprotein Pr55Gag [2]. The pro gene encodes the viral aspartic protease, responsible for cleaving viral polyprotein precursors into their functional units [2]. The pol gene encodes the enzymatic machinery, including the RNA-dependent DNA polymerase (reverse transcriptase), RNase H, and integrase (IN), which catalyzes the critical step of proviral integration into the host genome [2]. The env gene, as described, yields the gp51 and gp30 envelope glycoproteins that determine viral tropism and mediate cell entry [2, 3].

A defining feature of the Deltaretrovirus genus is the presence of additional regulatory and accessory genes in the pX region located between env and the 3' LTR. The BLV pX region encodes the regulatory proteins Tax and Rex, which are crucial for viral replication [2]. The Tax protein serves as the primary transactivator of viral transcription by binding to cyclic AMP response elements (CRE) within the 5' LTR, a process that is a prerequisite for efficient proviral expression [27, 32]. Rex orchestrates the nuclear export of unspliced and singly spliced viral mRNAs, thereby controlling the temporal expression of structural versus regulatory gene products. Beyond these, BLV also encodes two auxiliary proteins, R3 and G4, which are implicated in maintaining high proviral loads in vivo, and a panel of microRNAs (miRNAs) expressed from a cluster in the LTR region [2, 24]. These viral miRNAs are thought to play a critical role in host immune evasion and cellular transformation; notably, deletion of these non-coding RNA sequences has been shown to ablate BLV-induced oncogenesis in experimental models [24].

Host Range, Receptor Utilization, and Cellular Tropism

The primary host for BLV is the domestic cow (Bos taurus), but the virus can naturally infect other ruminant species, including water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), sheep (Ovis aries), goats (Capra hircus), and, under experimental conditions, rabbits and other mammals [11, 12]. The cellular receptor for BLV has been conclusively identified as the cationic amino acid transporter 1 (CAT1), encoded by the SLC7A1 gene [29, 31]. CAT1 is a conserved multi-spanning transmembrane protein and is expressed on a wide range of cell types across mammalian species, which likely explains the relatively broad experimental host range of the virus [29]. The interaction between the BLV gp51 surface unit and the extracellular loops of CAT1 is the critical first step in viral entry, followed by gp30-mediated membrane fusion [29]. While CAT1 is expressed ubiquitously, BLV exhibits a pronounced tropism for B lymphocytes in vivo [2, 3, 10]. The virus establishes a lifelong, persistent infection by integrating its proviral DNA into the host genome, primarily within CD5+ B cells [2]. Infected cells often express the CD11b and CD21 surface markers, and this subpopulation can expand dramatically during persistent lymphocytosis (PL) [36].

Global Significance and Zoonotic Considerations

The global distribution, prevalence, and economic impact of BLV are immense. While many European nations, Australia, and New Zealand have successfully eradicated EBL through rigorous test-and-slaughter programs, BLV remains endemic at high levels in many parts of the world, including the Americas, Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East [1, 3, 13, 22]. In the United States, animal-level seroprevalence in dairy cattle is estimated at approximately 46.5%, with over 94% of herds harboring at least one seropositive animal [30]. Similar or higher prevalence rates are reported in Japan, Brazil, Colombia, and various nations across Asia [3, 9, 17, 19, 34]. The economic losses attributable to BLV are multifactorial, stemming from reduced milk production, increased premature culling, decreased reproductive efficiency, heightened susceptibility to secondary infections such as mastitis, and the condemnation of carcasses at slaughter due to lymphosarcoma [6, 8, 23, 28]. Furthermore, a substantial and growing body of research has explored the zoonotic potential of BLV. Viral DNA and, in some studies, proteins, have been detected in human breast tissue and blood, with meta-analyses and systematic reviews reporting a statistically significant association between the presence of BLV genetic material and the risk of breast cancer [4, 5, 14-16, 20, 25, 33, 35]. Although a causal role in human carcinogenesis remains unproven and is the subject of intense investigation, these findings have heightened public health concerns and reinforced the imperative for effective control strategies at the animal level, in line with a One Health approach endorsed by organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Genetic Diversity and Genotyping

Phylogenetic analysis of the env gene, particularly the gp51 coding sequence, is the standard method for classifying BLV variants into distinct genotypes, which exhibit a marked geographic clustering [3, 7, 22]. Following the original classification system, at least 12 genotypes (G1 through G12) have been recognized globally, with G1 and G6 being the most cosmopolitan [7, 18, 22]. Genotype 1 is dominant in the Americas, Europe, Egypt, and parts of Asia [9, 19, 21, 26]. Genotype 6 is widely distributed in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America [17, 18, 26]. Other genotypes often exhibit more restricted geographical ranges; for instance, G7 is a major genotype circulating in Eastern Europe and parts of Central Asia, while G8 and G9 are primarily Asiatic [7, 22, 37]. Recent studies have identified novel genotypes, including G11 in China [18] and G12 in Kazakhstan [7], indicating that the genetic diversity of BLV is still expanding and that further variants likely exist, particularly in regions with limited surveillance. This genetic variability, while relatively low compared to other retroviruses like HIV, occurs in discrete regions of gp51 that may affect antigenicity and pathogenicity, and has implications for the sensitivity of diagnostic tools and vaccine efficacy [7, 18, 37].

Molecular Pathogenesis of Bovine Leukemia Virus

Bovine leukemia virus (BLV), an oncogenic member of the Deltaretrovirus genus within the family Retroviridae, is the etiological agent of enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL), a neoplastic disease of cattle recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) as a production-limiting pathogen with global economic significance [1, 3, 22]. The molecular pathogenesis of BLV is a multifaceted process, beginning with viral entry into host B lymphocytes, proceeding through a complex life cycle characterized by lifelong proviral latency, and culminating, in a minority of infected animals, in the development of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. This process is governed by an intricate interplay between viral genetic elements, host cellular machinery, and immunogenetic factors, particularly the bovine leukocyte antigen (BoLA) class II system.

Viral Genome Organization and the Basis of Cellular Tropism

The BLV proviral genome is approximately 8.7 kilobases in length and is flanked by two identical long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences that contain critical promoter and enhancer elements necessary for viral transcription [2, 27]. In addition to the canonical retroviral structural and enzymatic genes, gag, pro, pol, and env, the BLV genome encodes a suite of regulatory and accessory proteins that are central to its pathogenesis. These include the essential transactivator Tax (p34), the Rex protein involved in RNA processing, and the accessory proteins R3 and G4 [2, 27]. The env gene encodes the precursor protein that is cleaved into the surface glycoprotein gp51 and the transmembrane protein gp30, which are the primary determinants of viral tropism [2]. The initial, pivotal step in BLV infection involves the binding of gp51 to its cognate cellular receptor. Definitive studies have identified cationic amino acid transporter 1 (CAT1/SLC7A1) as the functional cellular receptor for BLV [29]. CAT1 is a widely expressed membrane protein, and its conservation across mammalian species explains BLV's broad host range and potential for cross-species transmission. Critically, the interaction between gp51 and CAT1 is not species-specific, a finding that provides a molecular basis for the detection of BLV in non-bovine hosts, including sheep, buffaloes, and humans [11, 29]. Following receptor binding, the gp30 transmembrane protein mediates pH-independent fusion of the viral and cellular membranes, a process that requires a specific motif within the gp30 ectodomain [2, 29]. This fusion event allows the viral capsid to enter the B lymphocyte cytoplasm, initiating the replication cycle.

The Proviral Lifecycle: Integration, Latency, and the Role of Tax

Upon entry, the viral reverse transcriptase, encoded by pol, converts the single-stranded RNA genome into double-stranded DNA, which is then transported to the nucleus and integrated into the host cell genome as a provirus by the viral integrase [1, 9]. This integration is a random and permanent event, ensuring lifelong infection of the host. The establishment and maintenance of proviral latency is a hallmark of BLV pathogenesis; for the majority of an infected animal's life, viral gene expression is tightly suppressed, allowing the virus to evade immune surveillance. This latency is mediated by the complex regulatory interplay of the 5′ LTR, which contains binding sites for cellular transcription factors, and the viral Tax protein. Mutation analyses have demonstrated that single nucleotide polymorphisms within the LTR, particularly in the promoter region, and in the tax gene itself can dramatically alter the efficiency of viral transcription, directly impacting proviral load (PVL) and, consequently, transmissibility [27, 32].

The Tax protein is a potent transcriptional transactivator that drives viral gene expression from the 5′ LTR, but its activity is normally limited in vivo by host epigenetic silencing mechanisms. Spontaneous reactivation of proviral transcription, leading to a burst of viral replication, has been documented in chronically infected cattle under conditions of stress or immune perturbation, a phenomenon that likely contributes to viral persistence and transmission [46]. Furthermore, BLV encodes a series of microRNAs (miRNAs) from a cluster within the non-coding region of the provirus. These viral miRNAs are critical for pathogenesis, as their ablation in a reverse genetics system results in a profound reduction in B-cell proliferation and a complete abrogation of oncogenesis in an animal model [24]. This demonstrates that these non-coding RNAs are not mere byproducts of viral transcription but are essential drivers of the pre-neoplastic expansion of infected B-cells.

Host Genetic Determinants: The Central Role of BoLA-DRB3

A substantial body of evidence has established that host genetics, specifically polymorphisms in the BoLA-DRB3 gene of the major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC-II), are the most powerful determinants of BLV pathogenesis and outcome [10, 42, 43]. The BoLA-DRB3 molecule is critical for presenting viral antigens to CD4+ helper T cells, thereby orchestrating the adaptive immune response. Specific alleles confer either resistance or susceptibility to the progression of disease. Resistant alleles, such as *002:01, *009:02, and 014:01:01, are consistently associated with a low proviral load (PVL), a lower risk of developing persistent lymphocytosis (PL), and a greatly reduced risk of progression to lymphoma [10, 38, 43]. Conversely, susceptible alleles like 012:01 and 015:01 are linked to high PVL, PL, and increased lymphoma risk [10, 43]. The molecular mechanism underlying this dichotomy appears to lie in the structural properties of the BoLA-DRB3 molecule. Structural modeling of the peptide-binding groove has revealed that resistance-associated alleles, such as BoLA-DRB3011:01, possess a positively charged binding pocket 9, which likely facilitates the high-affinity presentation of specific BLV epitopes, thereby inducing a robust cytotoxic T-cell response [40]. In contrast, susceptible alleles have a neutrally charged pocket 9, which may result in suboptimal antigen presentation and T-cell activation. This allelic variation has profound practical implications, as it influences not only the individual's own disease course but also vertical transmission risk. Dams carrying resistant alleles have a significantly lower proviral load in their milk and a reduced risk of transmitting BLV to their calves, demonstrating that host genetics can shape the epidemiology of the infection at the population level [38, 41].

Immune Exhaustion and the Progression to Neoplasia

Despite the presence of a virus-specific immune response, BLV is not cleared, and the chronic, lifelong infection leads to the progressive exhaustion of T-cell function, which is a prerequisite for the eventual outgrowth of malignant B-cell clones. The expression of immune checkpoint molecules, such as programmed death-1 (PD-1) and lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3), is markedly upregulated on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells from BLV-infected cattle, particularly those with high PVL [47]. Co-expression of PD-1 and LAG-3 defines a population of "heavily exhausted" T cells that are functionally incapable of proliferating or secreting Th1 cytokines like interferon-γ and tumor necrosis factor-α. The functional importance of this pathway has been demonstrated by blockade experiments; dual blockade of the PD-1/PD-L1 and LAG-3 pathways can partially restore T-cell function in vitro [47]. Furthermore, the prostanoid pathway, mediated by prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂), contributes to this immune dysfunction. BLV infection induces cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, leading to elevated plasma PGE₂ levels, which are positively correlated with PVL [44]. PGE₂ acts through its receptors EP2 and EP4 to directly activate BLV gene transcription and to suppress Th1 responses [44]. This PGE₂-driven immunosuppression creates a permissive environment for the expansion of infected B-cells. The culmination of chronic antigenic stimulation, T-cell exhaustion, and impaired immune surveillance sets the stage for the clonal expansion of a transformed B-cell. The development of frank lymphoma is a multistep process, and the clonality of proviral integration sites, as assessed by high-throughput methods like RAISING-CLOVA, serves as a powerful biomarker for early detection and prediction of lymphoma [39]. The molecular steps leading to transformation also involve perturbations in DNA repair pathways. BLV infection has been shown to affect the expression of multiple DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, including MSH2, MSH3, and UNG, with expression levels correlating with PVL [45]. This inhibition of MMR activity may accelerate the accumulation of somatic mutations in cellular proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, providing the multiple "hits" required for full malignant transformation.

In summary, the molecular pathogenesis of BLV is a carefully orchestrated process that begins with receptor-mediated entry via CAT1, proceeds through a latent proviral state regulated by Tax and miRNAs, and is profoundly influenced by host MHC-II genetics. The eventual outcome, whether an asymptomatic carrier state, persistent lymphocytosis, or fatal lymphoma, is determined by the delicate balance between the virus's ability to drive B-cell proliferation and the host's genetically determined capacity to mount an effective, sustained immune response, a balance that is ultimately tipped toward immune exhaustion and neoplasia.

Viral Genomics and Protein Functions

The genomic architecture of Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV) encodes a sophisticated repertoire of structural, enzymatic, regulatory, and non-coding elements that orchestrate a life cycle of persistent infection, immune evasion, and oncogenic transformation. As a member of the Deltaretrovirus genus within the Retroviridae family, BLV shares a close phylogenetic relationship with human T-cell leukemia virus types 1 and 2 (HTLV-1 and HTLV-2), making it not only a pathogen of considerable economic importance in cattle production but also a valuable comparative model for understanding retroviral oncogenesis [1, 3, 22]. The proviral genome, which integrates into the host B-cell genome as a DNA intermediate, is flanked by two identical long terminal repeats (LTRs) that contain essential cis-acting regulatory elements for transcription initiation, polyadenylation, and integration [2, 27]. Between these LTRs lies the canonical retroviral gene complement: gag, pro, pol, and env, in addition to a complex region encoding regulatory and accessory proteins that are hallmarks of the deltaretrovirus subfamily [2, 3]. The genomic organization of BLV is thus a paradigm of viral economy, where overlapping reading frames and alternative splicing generate a diverse proteome from a relatively compact genetic payload.

Structural Protein Encoding: The gag, pro, and pol Genes

The gag gene is a highly conserved genomic region responsible for encoding the three major non-glycosylated structural proteins of the virion core: the matrix protein p15, the capsid protein p24, and the nucleocapsid protein p12 [2]. The matrix protein p15 associates with the inner leaflet of the viral lipid bilayer and also binds to viral genomic RNA, facilitating its encapsidation during virion assembly. The capsid protein p24 forms the conical core that encases the viral ribonucleoprotein complex and serves as the primary immunodominant target of the host humoral immune response, making it a critical antigen for serological diagnostic assays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and agar gel immunodiffusion tests [2, 51]. The nucleocapsid protein p12 binds directly to the dimeric viral RNA genome within the core, protecting it from nuclease degradation and ensuring its efficient packaging into nascent virions [2]. The pro gene encodes the viral protease, an aspartyl protease responsible for cleaving the Gag and Gag-Pro-Pol polyprotein precursors into their mature, functional subunits, a processing step essential for the production of infectious, morphologically mature virions [2]. The pol gene encodes the enzymatic machinery required for reverse transcription and integration: the RNA-dependent DNA polymerase (reverse transcriptase) that converts the single-stranded RNA genome into double-stranded proviral DNA, and the integrase that catalyzes the covalent insertion of this proviral DNA into the host cell chromosome [2]. This integration event is a defining feature of the retroviral life cycle, establishing a permanent genetic reservoir that is replicated along with the host genome during cellular division, thereby ensuring life-long persistence of the virus in the infected animal [46, 50].

Envelope Glycoproteins and Receptor Engagement: The env Gene

The env gene encodes a polyprotein precursor that is glycosylated and proteolytically cleaved into two mature envelope subunits: the surface glycoprotein gp51 and the transmembrane protein gp30 [2, 22]. These two proteins form a non-covalent heterodimer on the virion surface, with gp51 mediating receptor recognition and binding, and gp30 anchoring the complex in the viral membrane and facilitating the membrane fusion event necessary for viral entry. The surface gp51 is the principal determinant of viral tropism and is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies produced by the infected host [2, 10, 54]. The interaction between gp51 and its cellular receptor, identified as the cationic amino acid transporter 1 (CAT1, also known as SLC7A1), is the critical first step in the entry process [29, 31]. Elegant functional studies have demonstrated that CAT1 is a bona fide BLV receptor: cells lacking detectable CAT1 are refractory to BLV infection, while ectopic expression of CAT1 confers susceptibility; furthermore, knockdown of CAT1 in permissive cells significantly reduces viral binding and infection [29]. Notably, CAT1 is a highly conserved protein across mammalian species, which likely underpins the broad host range of BLV, enabling experimental infection of sheep, goats, buffalo, and potentially humans [11, 29]. The gp30 transmembrane protein contains a hydrophobic fusion peptide that, upon receptor binding and conformational changes, inserts into the target cell membrane, driving the merger of viral and cellular membranes and allowing the viral core to enter the cytoplasm [2].

The functional domains of gp51 have been mapped through extensive mutational and epitope mapping studies. The protein contains key neutralizing domains, including linear epitopes B and D, and conformational epitopes such as epitope G, which are recognized by antibodies that can block infection in vitro and in vivo [37]. The genetic variability of env, particularly within gp51, is a hallmark of BLV evolution and is the basis for the classification of BLV into at least 12 distinct genotypes (G1 through G12) [7, 18, 22]. Globally, genotype 1 is the most widespread, detected across the Americas, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, while other genotypes show more restricted geographic distributions, such as genotype 4 in Egypt and Moldova, genotype 6 in East Asia, genotype 7 in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and genotype 10 in Southeast Asia [7, 9, 18, 19, 21, 26, 37]. The existence of multiple genotypes, some with specific amino acid signatures in gp51, such as the unique T-X-D-X-R-XXXX-A motif found in the neutralizing domain 2 of genotype 11 isolates from China, has implications for diagnostic test sensitivity and vaccine design [18]. Despite this genotypic diversity, the overall genetic variability of BLV is relatively low compared to other retroviruses like HIV, with negative selection acting as the dominant evolutionary force on the env gene, although specific codons within conformational epitope G and the zinc-binding domain show evidence of positive selection, suggesting host immune pressure drives localized adaptation [37].

Regulatory and Auxiliary Proteins: Orchestrating Viral Transcription and Pathogenesis

Beyond the structural and enzymatic genes, the BLV genome encodes a set of regulatory proteins expressed from alternatively spliced mRNAs that are crucial for controlling viral gene expression, latency, and oncogenesis. The primary transactivator, Tax, is a 34-kDa nuclear phosphoprotein that binds to three cyclic AMP-responsive elements within the 5′ LTR, recruiting host transcriptional co-activators such as CREB, CBP/p300, and PCAF to potently enhance viral RNA transcription [3, 27]. Tax is not only essential for productive viral replication but also exerts pleiotropic effects on the host cell, including the activation of cellular genes involved in proliferation, modulation of cell cycle checkpoints, and interference with DNA repair pathways, all of which contribute to the clonal expansion of infected B cells and the eventual development of lymphoma [24, 27, 45]. The Rex protein regulates the export of unspliced and singly spliced viral mRNAs from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, ensuring that structural protein mRNAs are available for translation in the late phase of the viral life cycle [3].

The BLV genome also encodes two auxiliary proteins, R3 and G4, which are non-essential for infectivity in vitro but are important for maintaining a high proviral load in vivo [2, 48]. R3 and G4 are small, poorly characterized proteins that localize to the endoplasmic reticulum and nucleus, respectively, and are thought to modulate cellular signaling pathways to enhance viral persistence. Indeed, a landmark vaccine study demonstrated that deletion of these accessory genes, along with other non-essential regions of the provirus, generated an attenuated virus that was capable of infecting cells but unable to replicate efficiently or cause disease, yet still elicited protective immunity against wild-type challenge [48]. This finding underscores the critical role of R3 and G4 in the pathogenic process and provides a rational basis for the development of live-attenuated vaccines.

Non-Coding RNAs: MicroRNAs and Long Non-Coding RNAs

A fascinating and increasingly appreciated aspect of BLV genomics is its capacity to encode non-coding RNAs, a feature not shared by all retroviruses. BLV produces a cluster of viral microRNAs (miRNAs) from a non-coding RNA precursor, as well as long antisense transcripts designated AS1 and AS2 [24]. These non-coding RNAs are invisible to the host adaptive immune system, yet they profoundly influence the fate of the infected cell. Functional ablation of the BLV miRNAs in a reverse genetics system in sheep led to a dramatic reduction in B-cell proliferation and a complete abrogation of oncogenesis, demonstrating that these small RNAs are critical drivers of the lymphoproliferative process [24]. Mechanistically, BLV miRNAs are thought to downregulate pro-apoptotic host genes and promote cell cycle progression, thereby creating a permissive environment for viral persistence and clonal expansion. The long non-coding RNAs AS1 and AS2 may also contribute to the regulation of viral latency and cellular gene expression, though their precise roles are still under active investigation [24].

Genetic Determinants of Viral Fitness and Pathogenicity

The relationship between viral genetic variation and biological phenotype is a central theme in BLV research. Comparative whole-genome sequencing of field isolates has revealed that, while overall sequence diversity is limited, specific nucleotide and amino acid substitutions can have profound effects on viral productivity and transmissibility [32, 53]. For instance, a single point mutation at nucleotide 175 within the LTR, located in a key regulatory element, can alter the promoter activity and, consequently, the level of viral gene expression and particle production in vitro [32]. In a study of 34 BLV-infected cows from a single farm, strains belonging to a phylogenetically defined "major group" displayed higher in vitro replication kinetics and were associated with significantly higher proviral loads in the host, suggesting that these variants possess a transmission advantage [53]. These observations highlight the interplay between viral genetics and host factors, such as the polymorphism of the bovine leukocyte antigen (BoLA)-DRB3 gene, which strongly influences proviral load [10, 38, 41, 43, 49, 55]. The BLV Tax protein itself is subject to functional variation; naturally occurring mutations in the tax gene can alter its transactivation capacity, thereby affecting LTR-driven transcription and, potentially, the dynamics of latency and reactivation [27]. The World Organisation for Animal Health has recognized the importance of characterizing these viral genetic determinants for the development of effective control strategies, as they directly impact diagnostic sensitivity and the potential for vaccine escape [12, 22, 52].

Epidemiology and Global Prevalence

The global epidemiological landscape of Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV) presents a stark dichotomy: a narrative of successful eradication in some regions juxtaposed against a relentless, often silent, expansion in others. This disparity is not merely a matter of geographical happenstance but is deeply rooted in historical control policies, economic imperatives, livestock management practices, and a fundamental underestimation of the virus’s subclinical impact. As a deltaretrovirus closely related to the Human T-cell Leukemia Virus (HTLV-1), BLV establishes a lifelong, persistent infection in its bovine host, with the majority of infections remaining asymptomatic [1, 3]. This clinical latency is the virus’s greatest epidemiological asset, allowing it to circulate undetected within herds for decades, undermining productivity and serving as a reservoir for transmission. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) as a listed disease, and while over 20 countries have achieved official freedom from the disease, the virus continues to pose a significant threat to global cattle industries, with recent prevalence estimates suggesting a troubling upward trend in many of the world’s largest dairy-producing nations [3, 13].

Global Prevalence: A Tale of Two Hemispheres

The most striking feature of BLV’s global distribution is the stark contrast between nations that have implemented rigorous, state-sponsored eradication programs and those that have not. Successful eradication, primarily achieved through test-and-slaughter protocols, has been documented in over 20 countries, predominantly in Western and Central Europe, as well as in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) [3, 13]. These programs, often initiated decades ago when herd-level prevalence was low, relied on the serological identification and subsequent removal of all antibody-positive animals. This approach, while economically viable at low prevalence, becomes prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging in regions where the virus has become endemic.

Conversely, the Americas and large swathes of Asia are witnessing a persistent and, in some cases, escalating prevalence. In the United States, a landmark cross-sectional study of dairy cattle revealed a staggering herd-level prevalence of 94.2%, with an average within-herd animal-level apparent prevalence of 46.5% [30]. This figure is consistent with a historical trend of increasing infection rates, a phenomenon attributed to the absence of any coordinated national control strategy and a historical lack of awareness regarding the production-limiting effects of subclinical infection [13, 30]. The situation in Canada is similarly concerning, with prevalence rates in dairy herds often exceeding 40%, prompting economic modeling that strongly favors the implementation of on-farm control strategies [28]. In South America, the burden is even more profound. Colombia reports an animal-level prevalence of 62%, with 92% of farms harboring at least one infected animal [19]. Brazil, home to one of the world’s largest commercial cattle herds, faces a severe challenge, with infection rates in dairy herds ranging from 60% to 95% in some regions [20]. Argentina also reports high and rising infection rates, contributing to substantial economic losses [3].

In Asia, the epidemiological picture is equally alarming. Japan has seen a steady increase in EBL cases, with the virus becoming endemic in dairy herds. A study in Taiwan revealed an extraordinarily high seroprevalence of 81.8% at the animal level and 99.1% at the herd level, indicating near-universal exposure within the island’s dairy population [34]. In Myanmar, a 2020 study reported a prevalence of 37.04%, a significant increase from earlier estimates, highlighting the dynamic and often worsening nature of the epidemic in developing regions [17]. Even in countries where prevalence is lower, such as Egypt (17.7-21.5%) and Vietnam (16.5-21.1%), the infection is widespread and poses a continuous threat to livestock productivity and trade [9, 21, 26, 60]. This global pattern underscores a critical epidemiological principle: in the absence of active intervention, BLV prevalence tends to increase over time, driven by its efficient horizontal and vertical transmission pathways.

Risk Factors and Transmission Dynamics: The Engine of the Epidemic

Understanding the epidemiological drivers of BLV is paramount for designing effective control strategies. The virus is primarily transmitted horizontally through the transfer of infected lymphocytes, with iatrogenic procedures representing a major, and highly preventable, route. The use of contaminated needles, surgical instruments (e.g., dehorners, tattooers), and rectal palpation sleeves are well-documented risk factors [9, 56]. A study in Egypt identified the reuse of a single needle or plastic glove for multiple animals as a significant risk factor for BLV seropositivity, underscoring the critical role of farm management practices in viral propagation [9]. Blood-feeding insects, particularly stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans) and horn flies (Haematobia irritans), have been implicated as mechanical vectors. A field study in Japan demonstrated that the installation of fly nets significantly reduced the BLV-positive conversion rate during summer months, providing strong evidence for the role of these vectors in transmission [66]. While the presence of BLV provirus has been confirmed in horn flies, their role in natural transmission under grazing conditions remains a subject of ongoing investigation [62].

Vertical transmission, from dam to offspring, occurs via two primary mechanisms: in utero infection and ingestion of infected colostrum or milk. The risk of in utero transmission is directly correlated with the dam’s proviral load (PVL). A study providing direct evidence of intrauterine infection demonstrated that pregnant dams with a high PVL could transmit the virus to their fetuses, with the newborn’s BLV sequence showing 100% nucleotide identity to the dam’s [67]. Perinatal transmission via colostrum and milk is a major route of infection for neonatal calves. The infectivity of milk is not uniform; it is heavily influenced by the dam’s PVL and her BoLA-DRB3 genotype. Dams carrying susceptible BoLA-DRB3 alleles (e.g., *012:01, *015:01) have significantly higher PVLs in their milk and a greater capacity to transmit infectious virus to their calves compared to dams with resistant alleles (e.g., *009:02, *014:01:01) [38, 41]. This finding has profound implications for control, suggesting that selective breeding for resistance could reduce vertical transmission. The role of natural breeding in BLV transmission appears to be minimal. A controlled study found that healthy, aleukemic BLV-infected bulls did not transmit the virus to seronegative heifers during a defined breeding season, although proviral DNA has been detected in smegma, suggesting a potential, albeit low, risk [63, 65].

The Proviral Load Paradigm: A Key Epidemiological Metric

A paradigm shift in BLV epidemiology has been the recognition of the central role of proviral load (PVL) in transmission dynamics and disease progression. PVL, the amount of BLV proviral DNA integrated into the host genome, is not static but varies dramatically between individuals. Infected cattle can be stratified into those with a high PVL (H-PVL) and those with a low PVL (L-PVL) [56]. This distinction is of paramount epidemiological importance. H-PVL cows are considered “super-spreaders,” harboring viral loads that can be over 1,000 times higher than those of L-PVL cows [59]. They are far more likely to transmit the virus to herdmates and are at a significantly higher risk of progressing to the fatal lymphosarcoma stage (EBL) [58]. A prospective study in Japan demonstrated that the hazard ratio for progression to EBL increased by 2.61 for every unit increase in PVL, establishing PVL as a robust predictor of disease outcome [58].

The host’s genetic background, particularly polymorphisms within the bovine leukocyte antigen (BoLA) class II DRB3 gene, is the primary determinant of PVL. This genetic association is one of the most well-characterized host-pathogen interactions in veterinary medicine. Specific BoLA-DRB3 alleles are strongly associated with either resistance (low PVL) or susceptibility (high PVL). For instance, alleles such as *009:02, *014:01:01, and *002:01 are consistently associated with low PVL and resistance to disease progression, while *012:01 and *015:01 are linked to high PVL and susceptibility [10, 43]. The mechanism is thought to involve the efficiency of antigen presentation; resistant alleles likely present BLV epitopes more effectively, eliciting a robust cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) response that controls viral replication. Furthermore, heterozygosity at the BoLA-DRB3 locus confers a significant advantage, with heterozygous animals showing lower PVLs and greater resistance to lymphoma development compared to homozygotes, a classic demonstration of heterozygote advantage [42]. This genetic control is so potent that it can be leveraged for selective breeding programs, offering a sustainable, long-term strategy for reducing within-herd transmission [13, 55].

Zoonotic Potential and Public Health Implications

The epidemiology of BLV has taken on a new and urgent dimension with accumulating evidence of its presence in humans and a potential association with breast cancer. For decades, BLV was considered non-infectious to humans, but advances in molecular detection techniques have challenged this dogma. A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies calculated a summary odds ratio of 2.57 (95% CI: 1.45-4.56) for the association between BLV infection and breast cancer risk [14]. Subsequent studies have corroborated this finding across diverse populations. In a study of Australian women, BLV DNA was detected in 80% of breast cancer tissues compared to 41% of controls, yielding an age-adjusted odds ratio of 4.72 [33]. Research from South Brazil reported a 30.5% detection rate in cancerous tissue versus 13.9% in healthy tissue [15], while a study from Colombia found a significant association with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.45 [57]. The most striking data comes from Minas Gerais, Brazil, where BLV proviral genes were amplified in 95.9% of breast tumor samples, representing the highest correlation reported to date [20].

The detection of BLV DNA in human blood cells (buffy coat) at a frequency of 38% in one study raises the possibility of systemic infection, which could facilitate viral transit to various tissues, including the breast [61]. Furthermore, phylogenetic analyses have demonstrated that BLV sequences found in human breast tissue are genetically highly related (97.8-99.7% identity) to those circulating in local cattle populations, providing strong evidence for a zoonotic origin [64]. The most plausible route of transmission is foodborne, through the consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products or undercooked beef from infected cattle [20, 61]. While the detection of BLV in human tissues does not prove causation, it fulfills several of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality, including strength of association, consistency across populations, and a temporal relationship (BLV DNA has been detected in benign breast tissue years before the development of malignancy) [33, 35]. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have not yet classified BLV as a human carcinogen, but the accumulating evidence is compelling enough to warrant serious public health consideration and to intensify efforts to control the virus in its bovine reservoir. The presence of BLV in commercial milk and beef products, coupled with the high prevalence of infection in many regions, underscores the potential scale of human exposure [20, 61].

Transmission Routes and Risk Factors

Bovine leukemia virus (BLV) transmission is a complex, multifactorial process driven primarily by the cell-associated nature of the virus. As a deltaretrovirus, BLV establishes a lifelong, persistent infection in B lymphocytes, and its transmission is almost exclusively dependent on the transfer of infected cells between hosts [1, 3, 56]. Cell-free virus is highly labile and inefficient at establishing infection in vivo, making direct or indirect cell-to-cell contact the central paradigm of BLV epidemiology. Understanding the nuanced interplay between iatrogenic, vertical, horizontal, and vector-borne routes, as well as the host and pathogen factors that modulate transmission risk, is paramount for designing effective control and eradication strategies. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) as a disease of significant economic importance, and its control is a priority for international trade in cattle and bovine products.

Iatrogenic and Direct Blood-Borne Transmission

The most well-documented and efficient route of BLV transmission is the iatrogenic transfer of infected blood or blood-contaminated instruments. This occurs primarily through common veterinary and husbandry practices that are not adequately sanitized between animals. The use of a single needle for multiple injections, whether for vaccinations, antibiotics, or blood collection, is a consistently identified and significant risk factor for BLV spread [9, 56]. Similarly, the use of contaminated surgical equipment, such as dehorning saws, ear taggers, tattoo instruments, and hoof-trimming knives, facilitates the direct inoculation of infected lymphocytes into susceptible animals [56]. The practice of using a single obstetrical sleeve for multiple rectal palpations or for assisting in calving has also been implicated, as the vaginal and rectal mucosa can be abraded, allowing for blood-to-blood contact [9]. The risk is amplified in high-prevalence herds where the probability of an instrument contacting an infected animal is substantial. Studies have demonstrated that even minute volumes of blood from a high-proviral-load (H-PVL) animal can establish infection, underscoring the critical need for rigorous biosecurity protocols, including the use of disposable needles and the disinfection of all reusable equipment between individuals [56, 59]. The World Health Organization (WHO) and WOAH guidelines for infection control in livestock operations emphasize these single-use and sanitation principles as foundational to preventing iatrogenic disease transmission.

Vertical Transmission: In Utero, Perinatal, and Lactogenic Routes

Vertical transmission from dam to offspring represents a critical pathway for perpetuating BLV infection within herds, particularly in dairy operations. This can occur at three distinct stages: in utero, during parturition, and postnatally through ingestion of infected milk or colostrum.

In Utero and Perinatal Transmission: While historically considered a minor route, direct evidence for intrauterine infection has been established. BLV provirus has been detected in cord blood and placental blood of calves delivered via cesarean section from dams with high proviral loads, confirming that transplacental infection can occur [67]. The risk of in utero transmission is strongly associated with the dam’s proviral load; dams with H-PVL are significantly more likely to give birth to pre-infected calves [41, 67]. The frequency of calves born already infected is estimated to be around 10% [50]. During parturition, exposure to maternal blood and vaginal secretions presents another opportunity for infection, particularly if the calf has any abrasions or if the birth process is traumatic.

Lactogenic Transmission via Colostrum and Milk: The ingestion of infected colostrum and milk is arguably the most significant vertical transmission route, especially in dairy herds where calves are fed pooled colostrum or bulk tank milk [50, 56, 68]. BLV-infected lymphocytes are present in the milk and colostrum of infected dams, and these cells can survive passage through the neonatal gastrointestinal tract, particularly in the first 24-48 hours of life when gut closure has not yet occurred [50, 68]. The proviral load in milk is positively correlated with the proviral load in the blood of the dam, meaning H-PVL cows shed significantly more infected cells into their milk [38, 68]. Critically, the infectivity of these milk cells has been directly visualized ex vivo using a luminescence syncytium induction assay (LuSIA), confirming that milk from BLV-infected dams contains cells capable of initiating new infections [68]. The risk is further modulated by the presence of colostral antibodies. While colostrum from infected dams contains high titers of anti-BLV antibodies, particularly against gp51, which can neutralize cell-free virus, they are less effective against cell-associated virus [54]. The net effect, protection versus infection, depends on the balance between the antibody titer and the proviral load in the colostrum [54, 70]. Calves born to dams with resistant BoLA-DRB3 alleles, which control PVL, have a significantly lower risk of lactogenic transmission compared to calves born to dams with susceptible alleles [38, 41]. This highlights the profound influence of host genetics on this transmission route. The use of pasteurized colostrum or colostrum from BLV-negative dams is a highly effective management practice to break this transmission cycle [28, 70].

Horizontal Transmission: Direct Contact and Fomites

Beyond iatrogenic routes, horizontal transmission through direct contact between cattle is a recognized but less well-understood pathway. The risk of transmission via casual contact, such as nose-to-nose contact or sharing water troughs, is considered low [56]. However, transmission can occur through behaviors that result in blood-to-blood contact. For example, aggressive interactions, such as mounting or fighting, can cause skin abrasions that allow for the exchange of infected lymphocytes [56]. The presence of BLV proviral DNA in nasal secretions and saliva suggests that these fluids could be a source of infection, but their role in natural transmission is likely minor compared to blood [56].

Role of Fomites: Contaminated equipment is a major fomite. Beyond needles and surgical instruments, items like nose leads, halters, and even the hands of handlers can become contaminated with blood and serve as a vehicle for transmission between animals [9, 56]. The survival of BLV-infected lymphocytes on fomites is limited, but the risk is real in high-throughput environments like milking parlors or during processing events.

Vector-Borne Transmission: The Role of Hematophagous Insects

The role of blood-feeding insects as mechanical vectors for BLV has been a subject of significant investigation. The primary candidates are large hematophagous flies, such as stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans) and horn flies (Haematobia irritans), which take interrupted blood meals from multiple hosts [62, 66]. These flies can carry infected lymphocytes on their mouthparts from a viremic animal to a susceptible one.

Evidence for Vector Transmission: BLV proviral DNA has been detected in the mouthparts of horn flies collected from BLV-positive cows, confirming that they can acquire the virus [62]. Experimental transmission studies have shown that homogenates of fly mouthparts can infect cattle, demonstrating the biological plausibility of this route [62]. Furthermore, field studies have provided compelling epidemiological evidence. In Japan, the rate of BLV seroconversion in dairy cattle was significantly higher during the summer months, when stable fly populations peak, compared to the winter [66]. Critically, the installation of fly nets on barns dramatically reduced the summer seroconversion rate, providing strong evidence that controlling insect vectors can directly reduce BLV transmission [66]. While the efficiency of mechanical transmission by flies is lower than direct blood transfer, in high-density herds with high BLV prevalence, the cumulative effect of numerous fly bites over a grazing season can contribute substantially to the force of infection. This route is particularly relevant for beef cattle on pasture, where iatrogenic exposure is less frequent but insect exposure is high.

Transmission via Semen and Natural Breeding

The role of natural breeding in BLV transmission has been controversial. BLV proviral DNA has been detected in the smegma of infected bulls, raising the possibility of venereal transmission [63]. However, a controlled experimental study designed to evaluate this risk found no evidence of transmission from a BLV-infected, aleukemic bull to seronegative heifers during a defined 38-day breeding season [65]. The authors concluded that healthy, aleukemic bulls may not pose a significant risk for transmission during natural service [65]. In contrast, the use of infected bulls for natural breeding has been identified as a risk factor in some epidemiological studies, possibly due to the increased likelihood of blood transfer from fighting or mounting injuries rather than from semen itself [56]. The risk may be higher if the bull has a high proviral load or lymphocytosis. For artificial insemination, the risk is negligible if proper sanitary protocols are followed, as semen itself is not a significant source of the virus, and the processing of semen for AI typically removes or inactivates any potential contaminating cells [63].

Host Genetic Factors as Modulators of Transmission Risk

One of the most critical determinants of transmission risk is the host’s genetic background, specifically polymorphisms in the bovine leukocyte antigen (BoLA) class II DRB3 gene. The BoLA-DRB3 locus is highly polymorphic and exerts a powerful influence on the proviral load (PVL) that an animal maintains after infection [10, 43, 49]. PVL is the single most important predictor of an animal’s infectiousness; cattle with a high PVL (H-PVL) shed far more infected cells in their blood, milk, and other secretions than those with a low PVL (L-PVL) [56, 58, 59].

Resistant and Susceptible Alleles: Specific BoLA-DRB3 alleles have been consistently associated with either resistance (low PVL) or susceptibility (high PVL). Resistant alleles, such as *009:02, *014:01:01, and *002:01, are associated with a robust immune response that controls viral replication, resulting in a low PVL and a low risk of transmission [10, 38, 43]. In contrast, susceptible alleles, such as *012:01 and *015:01, are associated with a failure to control viral replication, leading to a high PVL and a high risk of transmission [10, 38, 43]. This genetic control has profound implications for all transmission routes. For example, dams carrying susceptible alleles have significantly higher PVL in their milk and are far more likely to transmit BLV to their calves via colostrum and milk than dams carrying resistant alleles [38, 41]. Similarly, H-PVL animals are the primary drivers of iatrogenic and vector-borne transmission [56, 59]. The concept of heterozygote advantage also applies; animals that are heterozygous at the BoLA-DRB3 locus are more resistant to developing lymphoma and tend to have lower PVLs than homozygotes, further reducing their transmission potential [42, 49]. This knowledge has led to the proposal of using genetic selection for resistant BoLA-DRB3 alleles as a long-term strategy for controlling BLV transmission at the population level [13, 43].

Viral Factors and Proviral Load

The virus itself also contributes to transmission dynamics. While BLV is genetically stable compared to other retroviruses like HIV, spontaneous mutations in the viral genome, particularly in the long terminal repeat (LTR) promoter region and the tax gene, can alter viral transcriptional activity and replication fitness [27, 32]. These mutations can lead to differences in viral productivity in vitro, which correlate with PVL in vivo [32, 53]. Strains with higher replication capacity are associated with higher PVL in the host and, consequently, a greater potential for transmission [53]. The proviral load is not static; it can fluctuate over time, and factors such as immune exhaustion, co-infections, and stress can lead to virus reactivation and increased PVL, temporarily elevating an animal’s infectiousness [44, 46, 47]. The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes the measurement of PVL as a valuable tool for identifying high-risk animals for segregation or culling in control programs [13, 59].

Risk Factors at the Herd and Management Level

Several management-level factors are consistently associated with increased BLV prevalence and transmission risk. Large herd size is a major risk factor, as it increases the density of animals and the frequency of contacts, both direct and iatrogenic [30, 60]. High animal density also facilitates the spread of blood-feeding insects. The practice of pooling colostrum and feeding unpasteurized waste milk to calves is a powerful driver of lactogenic transmission [28, 50]. Poor biosecurity, including the failure to use a single needle per animal and the lack of disinfection of equipment, is a hallmark of high-prevalence herds [9]. The introduction of replacement heifers from outside sources without adequate quarantine and testing is another critical risk factor, as it can reintroduce the virus into a herd that has achieved a low prevalence [69]. Geographic location and climate also play a role; regions with warm, humid summers that support large populations of hematophagous flies see a seasonal increase in transmission [17, 66].

Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Approaches

Bovine leukemia virus (BLV) infection presents a remarkably heterogeneous clinical spectrum, ranging from lifelong asymptomatic carriage to aggressive B-cell lymphoma, a dichotomy that has profound implications for both individual animal health and herd-level management. Understanding this spectrum, alongside the sophisticated diagnostic armamentarium now available, is fundamental to controlling this economically devastating pathogen. The clinical trajectory is not merely a stochastic event; it is governed by a complex interplay between viral factors, host genetics, and immunological competence, which must be dissected to appreciate the full scope of BLV pathogenesis.

Clinical Manifestations: The Spectrum from Subclinical Infection to Neoplastic Disease

The vast majority of BLV-infected cattle, approximately 60-70%, remain clinically asymptomatic throughout their productive lives, serving as silent reservoirs for viral transmission [1, 3]. This asymptomatic carrier state is the most insidious aspect of BLV infection, as these animals exhibit no overt signs of disease yet harbor proviral DNA integrated into the host genome and can shed infectious virus, perpetuating the cycle of infection within a herd [13, 56]. The absence of clinical signs in these animals belies a state of profound immunological perturbation, which recent research has begun to elucidate. BLV infection, even in its subclinical form, induces a state of immune dysregulation characterized by T-cell exhaustion, mediated in part by the upregulation of immunoinhibitory receptors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1) and lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells [47]. This exhaustion is not a passive state; it is an active, progressive process that correlates with disease progression and is exacerbated by the cooperative signaling of these inhibitory pathways [47]. Furthermore, the virus manipulates the host environment through the production of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), which further suppresses Th1 responses and promotes immune exhaustion, creating a permissive environment for viral persistence and replication [44].

Approximately 30-40% of infected cattle develop a benign, non-neoplastic condition known as persistent lymphocytosis (PL) [2, 36]. PL is characterized by a sustained, absolute increase in the number of B lymphocytes in the peripheral blood, often exceeding 10,000 cells/μL, without the formation of solid tumors [36, 75]. This lymphocytosis is a direct consequence of the polyclonal expansion of BLV-infected B cells, driven by the mitogenic effects of the viral regulatory proteins, particularly Tax, and the anti-apoptotic signals conferred by viral miRNAs [24, 36]. While PL itself is not a malignant condition, it is a significant risk factor for progression to the terminal stage of disease. Critically, the proviral load (PVL), which quantifies the number of integrated viral genomes per cell, is a key determinant of this progression. Cattle with a high proviral load (H-PVL) are not only at a substantially elevated risk of developing lymphoma but are also the primary drivers of horizontal transmission within a herd, as they shed significantly more infectious virus into bodily fluids [56, 58, 59]. Indeed, prospective studies have demonstrated that the hazard ratio for progression to enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) increases by a factor of 2.61 for every incremental increase in PVL, underscoring PVL as a critical biomarker for disease outcome [58].

The most clinically dramatic and economically devastating manifestation of BLV infection is enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL), a fatal B-cell lymphoma that develops in only 1-5% of infected cattle, typically after a prolonged latency period of several years [1, 3, 10, 39]. EBL is characterized by the neoplastic transformation and clonal expansion of a single BLV-infected B cell, leading to the formation of solid tumors (lymphosarcomas) that can infiltrate virtually any organ system [2, 39]. The clinical presentation of EBL is highly variable and depends on the anatomical location of the tumors. Common presenting signs include progressive emaciation, weakness, and anorexia, often accompanied by palpable enlargement of peripheral lymph nodes, particularly the prescapular, prefemoral, and parotid nodes [2, 3]. When tumors infiltrate the abomasum, animals may present with signs of gastrointestinal obstruction, melena, or chronic bloat. Spinal cord involvement can lead to posterior paresis or paralysis, while infiltration of the heart, particularly the right atrium, can result in congestive heart failure, jugular distention, and brisket edema. Ocular manifestations, such as exophthalmos due to retrobulbar lymphoma, are also reported. The diagnosis of EBL carries a grave prognosis, and affected animals are typically culled or die within weeks to months of clinical onset [39, 58].

Beyond these classical manifestations, a growing body of evidence has illuminated the significant subclinical impacts of BLV infection on dairy production and health, which are arguably of greater economic consequence than the relatively rare cases of lymphoma. BLV infection, even in the absence of PL or lymphoma, is associated with a measurable reduction in milk production, impaired reproductive performance, and a significantly shortened productive lifespan [1, 6, 8, 13]. A large-scale study involving over 3,600 dairy cows across 91 US herds found that BLV-seropositive cows were 30% more likely to be culled or die during a 29-month monitoring period compared to their seronegative herdmates, after controlling for age and herd effects [8]. This reduced longevity is likely multifactorial, stemming from increased susceptibility to intercurrent diseases. The immunosuppressive effects of BLV are particularly pronounced in the mammary gland. BLV-infected cows, especially those with H-PVL, are significantly more susceptible to clinical and subclinical mastitis [6, 73]. A retrospective cohort study in Japan demonstrated that H-PVL cows had a 2.61 times higher hazard ratio for developing subclinical mastitis compared to non-infected cows, with half of H-PVL cows developing the condition within 52 days of calving [6]. This predisposition is linked to impaired mammary gland immunity, including reduced phagocytic capacity of milk macrophages and altered expression of antimicrobial peptides like lingual antimicrobial peptide (LAP) [71, 73]. Furthermore, BLV infection of mammary epithelial cells themselves has been shown to alter apoptotic pathways and downregulate Toll-like receptor (TLR) expression, compromising the innate immune response to bacterial pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus [74, 76]. The economic losses attributable to BLV-associated mastitis alone are staggering, with estimates reaching over $6 million annually in a single prefecture in Japan [6].

Diagnostic Approaches: A Multimodal Strategy for Detection and Management

The accurate and timely diagnosis of BLV infection is paramount for implementing effective control and eradication programs. Given the high prevalence of asymptomatic carriers, diagnostic strategies must be capable of detecting infection at all stages of disease, from the recently infected calf to the lymphocytotic adult. The diagnostic landscape has evolved significantly, moving from traditional serological methods to highly sensitive molecular techniques that provide quantitative data on viral burden.

Serological Methods: Detecting the Host Response

For decades, the agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) test, also known as the OIE-prescribed test for international trade, was the cornerstone of BLV diagnosis [22, 51]. AGID detects antibodies, primarily IgG, against the major viral envelope glycoprotein gp51 and the core protein p24. While highly specific, AGID suffers from relatively low sensitivity, particularly in the early stages of infection before seroconversion, and is labor-intensive and subjective in its interpretation. Consequently, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) have largely supplanted AGID as the primary screening tool for BLV [13, 22, 30]. Commercial ELISAs, which can be performed on serum, plasma, or milk, offer superior sensitivity and specificity, are amenable to high-throughput automation, and provide objective, quantitative results [30, 72]. The detection of anti-gp51 antibodies in bulk tank milk has proven to be a cost-effective and practical method for herd-level surveillance, allowing for the rapid identification of infected herds without the need for individual animal sampling [30]. The humoral immune response to BLV develops rapidly, with IgM antibodies detectable as early as 3 days post-infection, followed by a robust and persistent IgG response that is the target of most commercial ELISAs [51]. However, serological methods have a critical limitation: they cannot distinguish between currently infected animals and those that have been exposed and cleared the infection (though true clearance is rare in BLV), nor do they provide any information about the infectiousness of the animal.

Molecular Detection: Quantifying the Viral Genome

The advent of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology revolutionized BLV diagnostics by enabling the direct detection of proviral DNA integrated into the host genome [22, 52]. Nested PCR, targeting conserved regions of the env (gp51) or tax genes, offers exquisite sensitivity and is particularly valuable for detecting infection in the early window period before seroconversion, in calves with maternal antibodies, and in cases where serological results are ambiguous [4, 5, 9, 11]. However, the most significant advance in molecular diagnostics has been the development and standardization of quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) assays [52]. qPCR not only confirms infection but also precisely quantifies the proviral load (PVL), expressed as copies of provirus per unit of DNA (e.g., copies/10⁵ cells or copies/50 ng DNA). The PVL has emerged as the single most important biomarker for BLV infection, as it is directly correlated with both the risk of disease progression and the risk of transmission [56, 58, 59]. Cattle with H-PVL are the primary spreaders of BLV within a herd, while those with low PVL (L-PVL) pose a negligible transmission risk [56, 59]. This quantitative information has transformed BLV control strategies, allowing for a targeted approach where only the most infectious animals are identified for segregation or culling, rather than the blanket removal of all seropositive animals [13, 59]. The BLV-Coordination of Common Motifs (CoCoMo)-qPCR assay is a widely used and validated method for PVL quantification [38, 41, 68]. Despite its power, qPCR requires standardization, as inter-laboratory variability in copy number quantification remains a challenge [52].

Advanced Molecular and Cellular Techniques

Beyond standard qPCR, several advanced techniques have been developed for research and specialized diagnostic applications. The luminescence syncytium induction assay (LuSIA) is a cell-based assay that directly visualizes and quantifies the infectivity of BLV-infected cells [31, 68]. This assay uses reporter cells (CC81-GREMG) that express enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) upon fusion with BLV-infected cells, providing a direct measure of the number of infectious cells in a sample, such as milk or blood. This technique has been instrumental in demonstrating the infectious potential of milk cells from BLV-infected dams, even in the absence of detectable proviral DNA by qPCR [68]. More recently, a high-throughput method for clonality analysis, known as RAISING-CLOVA (Rapid Amplification of Integration Site without Interference by Genomic DNA Contamination - Clonality Value Analysis), has been developed [39]. This technique amplifies and sequences the proviral integration sites in the host genome, allowing for the calculation of a clonality value that reflects the degree of oligoclonal or monoclonal expansion of infected B cells. RAISING-CLOVA has shown remarkable accuracy in distinguishing cattle with EBL (lymphoma) from those with asymptomatic infection or PL, and can even predict the development of lymphoma months before clinical signs appear [39]. This represents a powerful new tool for early detection of the most dangerous stage of BLV infection.

Hematological Screening: A Classic but Limited Tool

Historically, hematological keys, such as the European Community (EC) Key or Bendixen’s Key, were used to identify cattle with lymphocytosis suggestive of BLV infection [75]. These keys use age-specific absolute lymphocyte counts to classify animals as normal, suspicious, or lymphocytotic. While simple and inexpensive, this approach has significant limitations. It lacks specificity, as lymphocytosis can result from other infections or stress, and it has poor sensitivity, failing to detect the majority of infected animals that are aleukemic. Furthermore, the reference ranges for lymphocyte counts are breed-specific; for example, Japanese Black cattle have significantly lower baseline lymphocyte counts than Holsteins, making the EC Key inappropriate for this breed [75]. Consequently, hematological screening is no longer recommended as a primary diagnostic tool but may still have a role in monitoring disease progression in known infected herds or as a preliminary screening method in resource-limited settings.

In summary, the clinical manifestations of BLV infection are a continuum from silent carriage to fatal neoplasia, with significant subclinical impacts on production and health. The diagnostic approach must be equally nuanced, leveraging the high throughput of serological ELISA for screening, followed by the quantitative power of qPCR for PVL determination to identify high-risk transmitters. Advanced techniques like LuSIA and RAISING-CLOVA offer unprecedented insights into infectivity and early cancer detection, respectively. The integration of these diagnostic modalities, guided by an understanding of host genetic factors such as BoLA-DRB3 polymorphisms that influence PVL [10, 43], forms the basis for modern, economically rational BLV control programs.

Control Strategies and Vaccination Prospects

The control of Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV) presents a formidable challenge to the global cattle industry, characterized by a dichotomy between regions that have achieved eradication and those where prevalence continues to escalate. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) as a notifiable disease, and its successful elimination from over 20 countries, primarily in Western Europe, demonstrates that eradication is feasible under specific epidemiological and economic conditions [3, 13, 56]. However, the biological complexity of BLV, a deltaretrovirus that establishes lifelong, latent infections integrated into the host genome, renders control fundamentally different from that of acute viral infections. The virus’s ability to evade immune clearance, its transmission primarily via cell-associated virus in bodily fluids, and the existence of a highly variable proviral load (PVL) among infected individuals all necessitate multifaceted, strategically layered interventions. Contemporary control strategies have evolved from simple test-and-slaughter programs to sophisticated, risk-based management approaches that integrate diagnostic precision, genetic selection, vector control, and, most promisingly, the development of safe and effective vaccines.

Test-and-Cull and Test-and-Segregation Strategies: Historical Success and Modern Adaptations

The cornerstone of BLV eradication in nations such as Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland was the rigorous implementation of serological testing (primarily agar gel immunodiffusion or ELISA) followed by the immediate culling of all seropositive animals [13, 56]. This approach, while highly effective in low-prevalence settings, becomes economically prohibitive in regions like the United States, where herd-level prevalence exceeds 90% and animal-level prevalence approaches 50% [13, 30]. The economic burden of culling a substantial proportion of the milking herd, coupled with the loss of valuable genetics, renders wholesale test-and-cull unfeasible for most commercial operations. Consequently, modern adaptations have shifted toward risk-based culling, leveraging the discovery that not all BLV-infected cattle are equally infectious.

A pivotal advancement in this domain is the stratification of infected animals based on proviral load (PVL). Cattle with high PVL (H-PVL) harbor thousands of copies of the provirus per 105 cells and are responsible for the vast majority of horizontal and vertical transmission events [56, 58, 59]. In contrast, animals with low PVL (L-PVL) exhibit minimal infectiousness and may even contribute to herd immunity without posing a significant transmission risk [56]. Field trials have demonstrated that identifying and selectively culling or segregating H-PVL cows, guided by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and lymphocyte counts, can dramatically reduce within-herd incidence. Ruggiero et al. (2019) reported that in three Midwestern US dairy herds, this targeted approach decreased the incidence risk of new infections from 13.8% to 2.2% and overall prevalence from 62.0% to 20.7% over a 2- to 2.5-year period [59]. This strategy aligns with the WOAH-recommended principle of removing the most significant sources of infection while preserving the productive capacity of L-PVL carriers. Economic modeling for Canadian dairy farms under a supply-managed quota system has confirmed that both test-and-cull and test-and-segregation strategies yield substantial net benefits (Can$1,592 and Can$1,594 per cow over 10 years, respectively) compared to no intervention, primarily by mitigating losses from reduced milk production, shortened longevity, and carcass condemnation [28].

Management-Based Interventions: Breaking the Chain of Transmission

Given the limitations of culling in high-prevalence herds, rigorous implementation of biosecurity and management practices remains the most immediately actionable control strategy. BLV transmission is predominantly iatrogenic, occurring through the transfer of infected lymphocytes via contaminated needles, surgical instruments (e.g., dehorners, tattooers, hoof-trimming knives), and rectal palpation sleeves [9, 56]. The use of single-use needles and gloves for every animal is a non-negotiable, low-cost intervention that significantly reduces transmission risk [9]. Furthermore, the role of blood-feeding vectors, particularly stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans) and horn flies (Haematobia irritans), has been experimentally confirmed. Horn flies collected from BLV-positive cows have been shown to harbor proviral DNA, and experimental injection of fly mouthpart homogenates can transmit infection [62]. Crucially, a three-year field study demonstrated that installing fly nets on barns significantly reduced the BLV-positive conversion rate during summer months, providing direct evidence that vector control is an effective component of an integrated management plan [66].

Neonatal calf management represents another critical control point. Vertical transmission occurs in utero, particularly in dams with high PVL, and via ingestion of infected colostrum and milk [41, 50, 68]. Approximately 10% of calves born to infected dams are already infected at birth, and colostrum from H-PVL dams poses a substantial infectious risk [50]. The practice of feeding pooled colostrum or raw milk from multiple dams amplifies this risk. Control strategies here include: (1) feeding colostrum only from BLV-seronegative dams or from L-PVL dams with high antibody titers, as colostral antibodies can provide passive protection [54]; (2) pasteurizing or spray-drying colostrum, which has been shown to effectively inactivate BLV infectivity without completely destroying immunoglobulin functionality [70]; and (3) preventing nose-to-nose contact between calves and their dams immediately after birth. Breeding bulls also represent a potential source, as BLV provirus has been detected in smegma, although natural breeding with aleukemic bulls appears to pose a low transmission risk under controlled conditions [63, 65].

Host Genetics and Selective Breeding: Leveraging BoLA-DRB3 Polymorphisms

A paradigm-shifting development in BLV control is the recognition that host genetics profoundly influence both susceptibility to infection and disease progression. The bovine leukocyte antigen (BoLA) class II DRB3 gene is the most significant host genetic factor identified to date. Specific alleles are strongly associated with either resistance or susceptibility to high PVL and lymphoma development [10, 43]. For instance, BoLA-DRB3*009:02 and *014:01:01 are consistently associated with low PVL and resistance to lymphoma, while *012:01 and *015:01 are associated with high PVL and increased transmission risk [10, 38, 41]. The mechanism appears to involve the efficiency of antigen presentation; resistant alleles likely facilitate a more robust cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) response, thereby controlling viral replication and limiting clonal expansion of infected B cells [10, 40].

The practical application of this knowledge is the potential for marker-assisted selection in breeding programs. By genotyping bulls and replacement heifers, producers could preferentially breed animals carrying resistant BoLA-DRB3 alleles. This approach is particularly attractive because it is a one-time investment that yields cumulative, long-term benefits. Daous et al. (2021) demonstrated that heterozygous combinations of certain alleles (e.g., *3/*28, *8/*11) were strongly associated with low PVL, suggesting that heterozygote advantage at the MHC locus enhances the breadth of the immune response [42, 49]. Genome-wide association studies have further identified additional SNPs within the bovine MHC and other regions (e.g., CNTN3) that contribute to PVL variability, providing a more comprehensive genetic panel for selection [55, 80]. While selective breeding alone cannot eradicate BLV, it can shift the population toward a low-PVL phenotype, thereby reducing overall transmission pressure and making other control measures more effective. This strategy aligns with the WOAH’s emphasis on sustainable, long-term disease management.

Immunotherapeutic Approaches: Reinvigorating the Exhausted Immune System

BLV infection is characterized by progressive immune exhaustion, particularly of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, which is mediated by the upregulation of immunoinhibitory receptors such as programmed death-1 (PD-1) and lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) [47]. This exhaustion allows the virus to persist and the proviral load to increase, ultimately leading to lymphoma in a subset of animals. Immunotherapeutic strategies aimed at reversing this exhaustion represent a novel and promising control avenue.

Blockade of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis using chimeric monoclonal antibodies has shown remarkable efficacy in experimental settings. Administration of an anti-bovine PD-L1 chimeric antibody (Boch4G12) to a BLV-infected calf resulted in significant proliferation of CD4+ T cells and a marked reduction in proviral load [78]. Similarly, an anti-PD-1 chimeric antibody (Boch5D2) demonstrated sustained serum levels and antiviral activity in vivo [79]. These findings indicate that checkpoint inhibitor therapy can reinvigorate the antiviral immune response, potentially allowing the host to control the infection without the need for direct antiviral drugs. Furthermore, the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade with a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor (meloxicam) has been shown to synergistically reduce PVL, as prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) contributes to immune suppression and directly activates BLV transcription via EP2 and EP4 receptors [44]. This dual immunotherapeutic approach, targeting both the PD-1 pathway and the PGE2-mediated inflammatory milieu, represents a sophisticated strategy to restore immune competence and limit viral spread. While these therapies are not yet commercially available for widespread use, they provide a proof-of-concept for managing chronic retroviral infections in livestock and could be integrated into control programs for high-value animals.

Vaccination Prospects: From Historical Failures to a Breakthrough Attenuated Vaccine

The development of a safe and effective vaccine against BLV has been a long-sought goal, hampered by the virus’s ability to establish latency and the difficulty in eliciting sterilizing immunity against a cell-associated retrovirus. Early attempts using inactivated whole virus, recombinant envelope proteins (gp51), or viral vectors failed to provide durable protection or, in some cases, exacerbated disease [48]. The key challenge is that a vaccine must induce a robust, long-lasting cytotoxic T cell response capable of eliminating infected cells, while avoiding the induction of enhancing antibodies or immune pathology.

A major breakthrough has been achieved with the development of an attenuated proviral vaccine. Archilla et al. (2022) designed a vaccine based on a BLV provirus with deletions in genes dispensable for infectivity but required for efficient replication and pathogenesis [48]. This attenuated strain is capable of establishing a limited, non-pathogenic infection that mimics the early stages of natural infection without causing disease or significant proviral integration. In a field trial conducted on a dairy farm with an extremely high incidence (prevalence rising from 16.7% in young stock to >90% in adults), the vaccine demonstrated remarkable efficacy. Sterilizing immunity, defined as complete protection against natural challenge, was achieved in 28 out of 29 vaccinated heifers over a 48-month period [48]. Crucially, the vaccine was safe: proviral loads remained undetectable in most vaccinated animals after an initial post-vaccination burst, the attenuated strain was not transmitted to sentinel animals, and calves born to vaccinated cows were provirus-negative while possessing maternal antibodies [48]. This vaccine represents a paradigm shift, offering a cost-effective tool that could be deployed in high-prevalence endemic regions to dramatically reduce transmission without requiring changes in management practices.

In parallel, computational approaches have been employed to design multi-epitope vaccines. Samad et al. (2022) used immunoinformatics to predict T-cell epitopes from all BLV-derived proteins, constructing a vaccine construct linked to an adjuvant and Toll-like receptor 3 (TLR3) agonist [77]. In silico analyses predicted that this vaccine would be antigenic, immunogenic, non-allergenic, and structurally stable, with strong binding affinity to TLR3 [77]. While such in silico designs require rigorous experimental validation, they provide a rapid and cost-effective pipeline for identifying candidate immunogens. The future of BLV vaccination likely lies in a combination of approaches: an attenuated live vaccine for use in seronegative replacement heifers to establish herd immunity, supplemented by multi-epitope subunit or vector-based vaccines for booster applications. The successful development of a BLV vaccine also has profound implications for human medicine, as BLV is the closest animal model for Human T-cell Leukemia Virus type 1 (HTLV-1), and the lessons learned from BLV vaccinology could accelerate the development of a vaccine against HTLV-1-associated adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma [48].

Integrated Control in the Context of One Health and Zoonotic Potential

The impetus for robust BLV control has been amplified by accumulating evidence linking BLV to human breast cancer. Multiple case-control studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated a statistically significant association between the presence of BLV DNA in human breast tissue and breast cancer, with odds ratios ranging from 2.57 to 4.72 [5, 14, 15, 33]. BLV DNA has been detected in 27-38% of human blood samples and in 59-96% of breast cancer tissue samples in some studies, with the highest correlations reported in populations consuming raw milk products [4, 20, 61]. While Koch’s postulates have not been fully satisfied and causation remains unproven, the consistency of the association across diverse populations (US, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iran) and the detection of BLV in benign breast tissue years before malignant transformation suggest a plausible etiological role [33, 35]. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have recognized the potential for foodborne zoonotic transmission of BLV, primarily through unpasteurized dairy products and undercooked beef [16, 61]. This zoonotic concern adds a critical public health dimension to the economic arguments for BLV control. An integrated control strategy must therefore encompass not only on-farm biosecurity and vaccination but also public health measures such as mandatory pasteurization of milk and public education regarding the risks of consuming raw dairy products. The development of a vaccine that could reduce the BLV burden in cattle would simultaneously reduce the potential for human exposure, aligning with the One Health framework that recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

References

[1] Zhao Y, Wang J, Chen J, Chen Y, Hu C, Chen X, et al.. Bovine Leukemia Virus: Origin, Prevalence, Phylogenetic Diversity, Risk Factors, and Strategies for Control. Animals. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15091344

[2] Sibgatullova A, Agoltsov VA, Kalabekov M, Ordasheva MS. BOVINE LEUKEMIA VIRUS GENES. SCIENTIFIC LIFE. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35679/1991-9476-2025-20-3-785-797

[3] Lv G, Wang J, Lian S, Wang H, Wu R. The Global Epidemiology of Bovine Leukemia Virus: Current Trends and Future Implications. Animals. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14020297

[4] Mendoza W, Isaza JP, López L, López‐Herrera A, Gutiérrez L. Bovine leukemia virus detection in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Virus Research. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2023.199186

[5] Khan Z, Abubakar M, Arshed MJ, Aslam R, Sattar S, Shah NA, et al.. Molecular investigation of possible relationships concerning bovine leukemia virus and breast cancer. Scientific Reports. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08181-5

[6] Nakada S, Fujimoto Y, Kohara J, Makita K. Economic losses associated with mastitis due to bovine leukemia virus infection.. Journal of Dairy Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21722

[7] Sultanov A, Rola-Łuszczak M, Mamanova S, Ryło A, Osiński Z, Saduakassova M, et al.. Molecular Characterization of Bovine Leukemia Virus with the Evidence of a New Genotype Circulating in Cattle from Kazakhstan. Pathogens. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11020180

[8] Benitez OJ, LaDronka RM, Norby B, Grooms D, Bartlett P. The effect of bovine leukemia virus on dairy cow longevity. JDS Communications. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jdsc.2021-0187

[9] Selim A, Manaa E, Alanazi A, Alyousif M. Seroprevalence, Risk Factors and Molecular Identification of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Egyptian Cattle. Animals. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020319

[10] Lo C, Borjigin L, Saito S, Fukunaga K, Saitou E, Okazaki K, et al.. BoLA-DRB3 Polymorphism is Associated with Differential Susceptibility to Bovine Leukemia Virus-Induced Lymphoma and Proviral Load. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12030352

[11] Olaya-Galán NN, Corredor-Figueroa AP, Velandia-Álvarez S, Vargas-Bermúdez D, Fonseca-Ahumada N, Nuñez K, et al.. Evidence of bovine leukemia virus circulating in sheep and buffaloes in Colombia: insights into multispecies infection. Archives of Virology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-021-05285-7

[12] . bovine leukemia virus. CABI Compendium. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.91731

[13] Bartlett P, Ruggiero VJ, Hutchinson H, Droscha C, Norby B, Sporer K, et al.. Current Developments in the Epidemiology and Control of Enzootic Bovine Leukosis as Caused by Bovine Leukemia Virus. Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9121058

[14] Khatami A, Pormohammad A, Farzi R, Saadati H, Mehrabi M, Kiani SJ, et al.. Bovine Leukemia virus (BLV) and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Infectious Agents and Cancer. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13027-020-00314-7

[15] Schwingel D, Andreolla AP, Erpen LMS, Frandoloso R, Kreutz L. Bovine leukemia virus DNA associated with breast cancer in women from South Brazil. Scientific Reports. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39834-7

[16] Lawson J, Salmons B, Glenn W. Oncogenic Viruses and Breast Cancer: Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus (MMTV), Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV), Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), and Epstein–Barr Virus (EBV). Frontiers in Oncology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00001

[17] Moe K, Polat M, Borjigin L, Matsuura R, Hein S, Moe H, et al.. New evidence of bovine leukemia virus circulating in Myanmar cattle through epidemiological and molecular characterization. PLoS ONE. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229126

[18] Yu C, Wang X, Zhou Y, Wang Y, Zhang X, Zheng Y. Genotyping bovine leukemia virus in dairy cattle of Heilongjiang, northeastern China. BMC Veterinary Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1863-3

[19] Corredor-Figueroa A, Salas S, Olaya-Galán NN, Quintero J, Fajardo Á, Sóñora M, et al.. Prevalence and molecular epidemiology of bovine leukemia virus in Colombian cattle.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104171

[20] Delarmelina E, Buzelin M, Souza BSd, Souto FM, Bicalho JM, Câmara RJF, et al.. High positivity values for bovine leukemia virus in human breast cancer cases from Minas Gerais, Brazil. PLoS ONE. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239745

[21] Hamada R, Metwally S, Polat M, Borjigin L, Ali A, Abdel-Hady AA, et al.. Detection and Molecular Characterization of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Egyptian Dairy Cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00608

[22] Polat M, Takeshima S, Aida Y. Epidemiology and genetic diversity of bovine leukemia virus. Virology Journal. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-017-0876-4

[23] Benitez OJ, Norby B, Bartlett P, Maeroff JE, Grooms D. Impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on beef cow longevity.. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105055

[24] Safari R, Jacques J, Brostaux Y, Willems L. Ablation of non-coding RNAs affects bovine leukemia virus B lymphocyte proliferation and abrogates oncogenesis. PLoS Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1008502

[25] Gao A, Kouznetsova V, Tsigelny I. Bovine leukemia virus relation to human breast cancer: Meta-analysis. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104417

[26] Le D, Yamashita-Kawanishi N, Okamoto M, Nguyen SV, Nguyen N, Sugiura K, et al.. Detection and genotyping of bovine leukemia virus (BLV) in Vietnamese cattle. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.20-0094

[27] Pluta A, Willems L, Douville R, Kuźmak J. Effects of Naturally Occurring Mutations in Bovine Leukemia Virus 5′-LTR and Tax Gene on Viral Transcriptional Activity. Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9100836

[28] Kuczewski A, Hogeveen H, Orsel K, Wolf R, Thompson JM, Spackman E, et al.. Economic evaluation of 4 bovine leukemia virus control strategies for Alberta dairy farms.. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15341

[29] Bai L, Sato H, Kubo Y, Wada S, Aida Y. CAT1/SLC7A1 acts as a cellular receptor for bovine leukemia virus infection. bioRxiv. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201901528R

[30] LaDronka RM, Ainsworth S, Wilkins M, Norby B, Byrem T, Bartlett P. Prevalence of Bovine Leukemia Virus Antibodies in US Dairy Cattle. Veterinary Medicine International. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5831278

[31] Sato H, Bai L, Borjigin L, Aida Y. Overexpression of bovine leukemia virus receptor SLC7A1/CAT1 enhances cellular susceptibility to BLV infection on luminescence syncytium induction assay (LuSIA). Virology Journal. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-020-01324-y

[32] Murakami H, Todaka H, Uchiyama J, Sato R, Sogawa K, Sakaguchi M, et al.. A point mutation to the long terminal repeat of bovine leukemia virus related to viral productivity and transmissibility.. Virology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2019.08.015

[33] Buehring G, Shen H, Schwartz DA, Lawson J. Bovine leukemia virus linked to breast cancer in Australian women and identified before breast cancer development. PLoS ONE. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179367

[34] Hsieh J, Li C, Hsu W, Chuang S. Molecular Epidemiological and Serological Studies of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Taiwan Dairy Cattle. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00427

[35] Buehring G, Sans HM. Breast Cancer Gone Viral? Review of Possible Role of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer, and Related Opportunities for Cancer Prevention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010209

[36] Farías MVN, Souza F, Lendez P, Martínez-Cuesta L, Santos KR, Libera ADD, et al.. Lymphocyte proliferation and apoptosis of lymphocyte subpopulations in bovine leukemia virus-infected dairy cows with high and low proviral load.. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2018.10.012

[37] Pluta A, Rola-Łuszczak M, Kubiś P, Balov S, Moskalik R, Choudhury B, et al.. Molecular characterization of bovine leukemia virus from Moldovan dairy cattle. Archives of Virology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-017-3241-4

[38] Nakatsuchi A, Watanuki S, Borjigin L, Sato H, Bai L, Matsuura R, et al.. BoLA-DRB3 Polymorphism Controls Proviral Load and Infectivity of Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV) in Milk. Pathogens. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11020210

[39] Okagawa T, Shimakura H, Konnai S, Saito M, Matsudaira T, Nao N, et al.. Diagnosis and Early Prediction of Lymphoma Using High-Throughput Clonality Analysis of Bovine Leukemia Virus-Infected Cells. bioRxiv. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02595-22

[40] Lo C, Takeshima S, Okada K, Saitou E, Fujita T, Matsumoto Y, et al.. Association of Bovine Leukemia Virus-Induced Lymphoma with BoLA-DRB3 Polymorphisms at DNA, Amino Acid, and Binding Pocket Property Levels. Pathogens. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10040437

[41] Borjigin L, Lo C, Bai L, Hamada R, Sato H, Yoneyama S, et al.. Risk Assessment of Bovine Major Histocompatibility Complex Class II DRB3 Alleles for Perinatal Transmission of Bovine Leukemia Virus. Pathogens. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10050502

[42] Lo C, Takeshima S, Wada S, Matsumoto Y, Aida Y. Bovine major histocompatibility complex (BoLA) heterozygote advantage against the outcome of bovine leukemia virus infection. HLA. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tan.14285

[43] Takeshima S, Ohno A, Aida Y. Bovine leukemia virus proviral load is more strongly associated with bovine major histocompatibility complex class II DRB3 polymorphism than with DQA1 polymorphism in Holstein cow in Japan. Retrovirology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12977-019-0476-z

[44] Sajiki Y, Konnai S, Okagawa T, Nishimori A, Maekawa N, Goto S, et al.. Prostaglandin E2–Induced Immune Exhaustion and Enhancement of Antiviral Effects by Anti–PD-L1 Antibody Combined with COX-2 Inhibitor in Bovine Leukemia Virus Infection. Journal of Immunology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1900342

[45] Bai L, Hirose T, Assi W, Wada S, Takeshima S, Aida Y. Bovine Leukemia Virus Infection Affects Host Gene Expression Associated with DNA Mismatch Repair. Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9110909

[46] Jaworski J, Petersen M, Carignano HA, Trono K. Spontaneous virus reactivation in cattle chronically infected with bovine leukemia virus. BMC Veterinary Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1908-7

[47] Okagawa T, Konnai S, Nishimori A, Maekawa N, Goto S, Ikebuchi R, et al.. Cooperation of PD-1 and LAG-3 in the exhaustion of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells during bovine leukemia virus infection. Veterinary Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-018-0543-9

[48] Archilla GS, Gutiérrez G, Camussone C, Calvinho L, Abdala A, Álvarez I, et al.. A safe and effective vaccine against bovine leukemia virus. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.980514

[49] Daous HE, Mitoma S, Elhanafy E, Nguyen HT, Mai NT, Notsu K, et al.. Relationship between Allelic Heterozygosity in BoLA-DRB3 and Proviral Loads in Bovine Leukemia Virus-Infected Cattle. Animals. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030647

[50] Ruiz V, Porta N, Lomónaco M, Trono K, Álvarez I. Bovine Leukemia Virus Infection in Neonatal Calves. Risk Factors and Control Measures. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00267

[51] Gulyukin MI, Kapustina OV, Ezdakova I, Valtsiferova SV, Stepanova TV, Anoyatbekov M. [Detection of specific antibodies of classes G and M to bovine leukemia virus in the blood serum.]. Voprosy virusologii. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36233/0507-4088-2019-64-4-173-177

[52] Jaworski J, Jaworski J, Pluta A, Rola-Łuszczak M, McGowan S, Finnegan C, et al.. Interlaboratory Comparison of Six Real-Time PCR Assays for Detection of Bovine Leukemia Virus Proviral DNA. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00304-18

[53] Murakami H, Uchiyama J, Suzuki C, Nikaido S, Shibuya K, Sato R, et al.. Variations in the viral genome and biological properties of bovine leukemia virus wild-type strains.. Virus Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2018.06.005

[54] Konishi M, Ishizaki H, Kameyama K, Murakami K, Yamamoto T. The effectiveness of colostral antibodies for preventing bovine leukemia virus (BLV) infection in vitro. BMC Veterinary Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1724-5

[55] Carignano HA, Roldán DL, Beribe MJ, Raschia MA, Amadio A, Nani JP, et al.. Genome-wide scan for commons SNPs affecting bovine leukemia virus infection level in dairy cattle. BMC Genomics. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-4523-2

[56] Kuczewski A, Orsel K, Barkema H, Mason S, Erskine R, Meer Fvd. Invited review: Bovine leukemia virus-Transmission, control, and eradication.. Journal of Dairy Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18925

[57] Olaya-Galán NN, Salas-Cárdenas SP, Rodriguez-Sarmiento J, Ibáñez-Pinilla M, Monroy R, Corredor-Figueroa AP, et al.. Risk factor for breast cancer development under exposure to bovine leukemia virus in Colombian women: A case-control study. PLoS ONE. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257492

[58] Kobayashi T, Inagaki Y, Ohnuki N, Sato R, Murakami S, Imakawa K. Increasing Bovine leukemia virus (BLV) proviral load is a risk factor for progression of Enzootic bovine leucosis: A prospective study in Japan.. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.04.009

[59] Ruggiero VJ, Norby B, Benitez OJ, Hutchinson H, Sporer K, Droscha C, et al.. Controlling bovine leukemia virus in dairy herds by identifying and removing cows with the highest proviral load and lymphocyte counts.. Journal of Dairy Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-16186

[60] Selim A, Megahed A, Kandeel S, Abdelhady A. Risk factor analysis of bovine leukemia virus infection in dairy cattle in Egypt.. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2020.101517

[61] Buehring G, Delaney A, Shen H, Chu D, Razavian N, Schwartz DA, et al.. Bovine leukemia virus discovered in human blood. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-3891-9

[62] Panei CJ, Larsen A, Fuentealba N, Metz GE, Echeverría MG, Galosi C, et al.. Study of horn flies as vectors of bovine leukemia virus. Open Veterinary Journal. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v9i1.6

[63] Benitez OJ, Roberts JN, Norby B, Bartlett P, Takeshima S, Watanuki S, et al.. Breeding bulls as a potential source of bovine leukemia virus transmission in beef herds.. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.254.11.1335

[64] Canova R, Weber MN, Budaszewski RF, Silva MSd, Schwingel D, Canal C, et al.. Bovine leukemia viral DNA found on human breast tissue is genetically related to the cattle virus. One Health. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100252

[65] Benitez OJ, Roberts JN, Norby B, Bartlett P, Maeroff JE, Grooms D. Lack of Bovine leukemia virus transmission during natural breeding of cattle.. Theriogenology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2018.12.005

[66] Kohara J, Takeuchi M, Hirano Y, Sakurai Y, Takahashi T. Vector control efficacy of fly nets on preventing bovine leukemia virus transmission. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.18-0199

[67] Sajiki Y, Konnai S, Nishimori A, Okagawa T, Maekawa N, Goto S, et al.. Intrauterine infection with bovine leukemia virus in pregnant dam with high viral load. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.17-0391

[68] Watanuki S, Takeshima S, Borjigin L, Sato H, Bai L, Murakami H, et al.. Visualizing bovine leukemia virus (BLV)-infected cells and measuring BLV proviral loads in the milk of BLV seropositive dams. Veterinary Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-019-0724-1

[69] Ruggiero VJ, Bartlett P. Control of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Three US Dairy Herds by Culling ELISA-Positive Cows. Veterinary Medicine International. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3202184

[70] Lomónaco M, Sowul M, Gutiérrez G, Malacari D, Álvarez I, Porta N, et al.. Efficacy of the spray-drying treatment to inactivate the bovine leukemia virus in bovine colostrum.. Journal of Dairy Science. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17854

[71] Lima EdS, Blagitz M, Batista C, Alves AJ, Fernandes ACC, Sanchez EMR, et al.. Milk Macrophage Function in Bovine Leukemia Virus-Infected Dairy Cows. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.650021

[72] Viter R, Savchuk M, Starodub N, Balevičius Z, Tumėnas S, Ramanavičienė A, et al.. Photoluminescence immunosensor based on bovine leukemia virus proteins immobilized on the ZnO nanorods. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SNB.2019.01.054

[73] Watanabe A, Murakami H, Kakinuma S, Murao K, Ohmae K, Isobe N, et al.. Association between bovine leukemia virus proviral load and severity of clinical mastitis. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.19-0285

[74] Cuesta LM, Farías MVN, Lendez P, Rowland R, Sheahan MA, Valenzuela FC, et al.. Effect of Bovine leukemia virus on bovine mammary epithelial cells.. Virus Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2019.197678

[75] Mekata H, Yamamoto M, Kirino Y, Sekiguchi S, Konnai S, Horii Y, et al.. New hematological key for bovine leukemia virus-infected Japanese Black cattle. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.17-0455

[76] Cuesta LM, Farías MVN, Lendez P, Barone L, Perez S, Dolcini G, et al.. Stable infection of a bovine mammary epithelial cell line (MAC-T) with bovine leukemia virus (BLV).. Virus Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2018.07.013

[77] Samad A, Meghla NS, Nain Z, Karpiński T, Rahman MS. Immune epitopes identification and designing of a multi-epitope vaccine against bovine leukemia virus: a molecular dynamics and immune simulation approaches. Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-022-03181-w

[78] Nishimori A, Konnai S, Okagawa T, Maekawa N, Ikebuchi R, Goto S, et al.. In vitro and in vivo antivirus activity of an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) rat-bovine chimeric antibody against bovine leukemia virus infection. PLoS ONE. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174916

[79] Okagawa T, Konnai S, Nishimori A, Maekawa N, Ikebuchi R, Goto S, et al.. Anti-Bovine Programmed Death-1 Rat–Bovine Chimeric Antibody for Immunotherapy of Bovine Leukemia Virus Infection in Cattle. Frontiers in Immunology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00650

[80] Takeshima S, Sasaki S, Meripet P, Sugimoto Y, Aida Y. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the bovine MHC region of Japanese Black cattle are associated with bovine leukemia virus proviral load. Retrovirology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12977-017-0348-3