Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus

Overview and Taxonomy of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) represents one of the most economically significant viral pathogens affecting the global cattle industry, causing substantial losses through reproductive failure, respiratory disease, immunosuppression, and the development of mucosal disease [1, 3, 7]. The virus is classified within the genus Pestivirus of the family Flaviviridae, a family that also includes the genera Flavivirus, Hepacivirus, and Pegivirus [2, 3, 5]. This taxonomic placement is critical for understanding the virus's molecular biology, as it shares fundamental genomic organization and replication strategies with other notable pathogens such as hepatitis C virus (HCV) and classical swine fever virus (CSFV) [5, 9, 22]. Indeed, BVDV has been extensively utilized as a surrogate model for HCV research due to the difficulties in culturing HCV in vitro, a practice that has yielded valuable insights into the biology of both viruses [5, 9]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes BVDV as a pathogen of major importance, and its control is a priority in many nations, though global eradication remains elusive [7, 12].

Taxonomic Classification and Species Delineation

The genus Pestivirus has undergone significant taxonomic revision in recent decades, driven by advances in molecular phylogenetics. Historically, BVDV isolates were classified into two distinct species: Bovine viral diarrhea virus 1 (BVDV-1) and Bovine viral diarrhea virus 2 (BVDV-2) [4, 10, 17]. This fundamental dichotomy was first rigorously established by Ridpath et al. (1994) through comparative sequence analysis of the 5' untranslated region (5' UTR), which demonstrated that these two groups were as genetically distinct from one another as reference BVDV strains were from hog cholera virus (now CSFV) [17]. Under the current International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) nomenclature, these species are formally designated as Pestivirus A (BVDV-1) and Pestivirus B (BVDV-2) [10]. A third species, Pestivirus H (HoBi-like pestivirus, also termed atypical ruminant pestivirus), has been identified and is associated with BVD-like disease in cattle, particularly in South America and parts of Europe, adding further complexity to the taxonomy of bovine pestiviruses [10, 25].

The genetic differentiation between BVDV-1 and BVDV-2 is robust and can be reliably achieved regardless of the genomic region analyzed [4]. However, the two species exhibit important antigenic and pathogenic differences. BVDV-2, in particular, has been associated with more severe clinical outcomes, including the hemorrhagic syndrome characterized by thrombocytopenia and high mortality, a phenotype less commonly observed with BVDV-1 isolates [17, 26]. This distinction has profound implications for vaccine development and diagnostic test design, as vaccines must provide cross-protection against both species to be effective in the field [7, 15].

Subgenotype Diversity and Global Distribution

Within the two major species, an extraordinary degree of genetic diversity has been documented, leading to the classification of numerous subgenotypes. BVDV-1 is currently segregated into at least 21 subgenotypes (1a–1u) , while BVDV-2 comprises four subgenotypes (2a–2d) [4, 8]. This diversity is not merely a taxonomic curiosity; it has direct consequences for disease control, as different subgenotypes may vary in antigenicity, virulence, and transmissibility [4, 7]. The most frequently reported BVDV-1 subgenotypes globally are 1b, followed by 1a and 1c [4]. However, the distribution is highly dynamic and region-specific.

European countries have documented the highest number of distinct BVDV subgenotypes, reflecting a longer history of viral circulation and more intensive surveillance [4, 14, 25]. For instance, studies in Poland have identified seven subtypes (1b, 1g, 1f, 1d, 1r, 1s, and 1e), including two novel subtypes reported for the first time, indicating an evolving genetic landscape [14]. Similarly, Italy has reported a wide temporal-spatial distribution of subtypes, with 1b and 1e being highly prevalent, alongside sporadic detection of 1c, 1j, and 1l [25]. In North America, BVDV-1a, 1b, and 2a are predominant, though the genetic diversity is less pronounced than in Europe [7, 10]. China presents a particularly complex picture, with studies revealing the circulation of BVDV-1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1q, and two novel tentative subtypes designated "1v" and "1w" [6, 16, 23]. The dominant strains in Chinese dairy herds are BVDV-1a, 1c, and 1m, collectively accounting for over 80% of isolates in some surveys [6]. In Mexico, at least four subgenotypes (BVDV-1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a) have been identified [10].

A critical issue in BVDV taxonomy is the lack of a harmonized system for subgenotype assignment [4]. The choice of genomic region for phylogenetic analysis can lead to inconsistent classification of some isolates. While the 5' UTR is most commonly used due to its conservation and ease of amplification, it may not provide sufficient resolution for reliable subtyping [8]. Recent comprehensive analyses comparing complete genome phylogenies with individual gene trees have demonstrated that the NS4B gene is the most suitable target for BVDV-1 subtyping, while the NS5A gene is optimal for BVDV-2, as these regions most closely recapitulate the topology and branch lengths of whole-genome analyses [8]. The 3' UTR, conversely, yields the least reliable results [8]. The development of a consensus approach to subtyping, as recommended by Yeşilbağ et al. (2017), is essential for future epidemiological studies and for understanding the global distribution and evolution of BVDV [4].

Biotype Classification: Cytopathic and Non-Cytopathic

Beyond genetic species and subgenotype, BVDV isolates are classified into two distinct biotypes based on their effect on cultured cells: cytopathic (CP) and non-cytopathic (NCP) [2, 3, 24]. This distinction is of paramount importance in understanding the pathogenesis of mucosal disease (MD), a fatal condition that arises when a CP BVDV emerges from a pre-existing NCP persistent infection [24, 26]. The NCP biotype is the most common in nature and is the biotype responsible for establishing persistent infections (PI) in fetuses infected before approximately 125 days of gestation [7, 13]. PI animals are immunotolerant to the infecting NCP strain and shed virus continuously throughout their lives, serving as the primary reservoir for BVDV transmission [7, 13, 20].

The molecular basis for the CP phenotype lies in the expression of the NS3 protein (also referred to as p80). In NCP infections, the NS3 protein is produced only as part of a larger NS2-3 precursor, which is cleaved inefficiently [2, 26]. In CP infections, however, NS3 is expressed as a separate, free protein due to various genetic alterations, including insertions, duplications, or recombination events within the viral genome [2, 26]. This free NS3 is associated with enhanced RNA replication and the induction of cytopathic effects in cell culture [2]. The emergence of CP BVDV from an NCP background in a PI animal triggers the acute, often fatal, mucosal disease [24, 26].

Host Range and Epidemiological Implications

BVDV is not strictly host-specific. While cattle are the natural reservoir and primary host, the virus has been documented in over 40 domestic and free-ranging species within the order Artiodactyla [7, 18, 21]. Persistent infections, the hallmark of BVDV epidemiology, have been described in at least eight heterologous species, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, eland, mouse deer, mountain goats, alpacas, sheep, and domestic swine [18]. This broad host range has significant implications for eradication efforts, as wildlife populations can act as reservoirs for re-infection of cattle [19, 21].

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), the most abundant free-ranging ruminant in North America, have been a particular focus of research. Experimental infections have demonstrated that deer are susceptible to BVDV, can shed the virus, and can produce PI offspring, fulfilling the criteria for a potential wildlife reservoir [21]. Similarly, wild boar in Europe have been found to harbor BVDV, with phylogenetic analysis of isolates from Serbian wild boar revealing 100% identity with BVDV-1f strains circulating in domestic cattle, suggesting spillover from livestock [19]. Goats are also susceptible and can give birth to PI kids, though this appears to be a rarer event than in cattle [27]. Pigs can be infected with BVDV, and while clinical disease is generally mild, the antigenic similarity between BVDV and CSFV poses diagnostic challenges for classical swine fever surveillance [11]. The ability of BVDV to infect such a diverse range of hosts underscores the necessity of a multi-species approach to disease control, a principle recognized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in its guidelines for transboundary animal disease management.

Molecular Pathogenesis of BVDV: Viral Replication and Non-Structural Protein Functions

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), classified within the genus Pestivirus of the family Flaviviridae, is the causative agent of one of the most economically impactful viral diseases of cattle worldwide, recognized by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) as a significant pathogen of livestock [1, 3, 7]. The viral genome is a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA molecule of approximately 12.3 kb that contains a single open reading frame (ORF) flanked by highly structured 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) [2, 3]. Translation of the ORF yields a polyprotein of roughly 3,900 amino acids, which is co- and post-translationally cleaved by viral and cellular proteases into four structural proteins (C, Erns, E1, E2) and eight non-structural proteins (NSPs): Npro, p7, NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, and NS5B [2, 26]. The orchestrated functions of these NSPs are critical for viral replication, modulation of host cellular pathways, and evasion of intrinsic antiviral defenses, thereby governing the molecular pathogenesis of BVDV.

Genome Organization and Polyprotein Processing

The 5′ UTR of BVDV contains an internal ribosome entry site (IRES) that directs cap-independent translation initiation, a feature shared with other Flaviviridae members [22]. Importantly, the 5′ UTR of BVDV harbors a region that stalls the cellular 5′-3′ exoribonuclease XRN1, leading to global dysregulation of host mRNA stability and altered expression of oncogenes and angiogenesis factors, a mechanism also observed with hepatitis C virus (HCV) [22]. This XRN1 stalling represents a non‑coding RNA–mediated host–virus interaction that promotes a cellular environment favorable for persistent infection. The 3′ UTR, in contrast, is essential for minus-strand RNA synthesis and genome replication [2, 8].

Post-translational processing of the viral polyprotein is mediated by two viral proteases: the N-terminal autoprotease Npro, which cleaves itself from the nascent polyprotein, and the NS2-3 protease (NS3 serine protease in conjunction with NS4A cofactor) that processes the remainder of the polyprotein downstream of NS3 [2, 26]. The cytopathic (CP) and non‑cytopathic (NCP) biotype distinction hinges on the expression of free NS3; in NCP BVDV, NS3 remains primarily as part of the NS2-3 precursor, whereas in CP BVDV, a separate NS3 species is generated via alternative processing, often involving cellular insertions or duplications [2, 26]. This differential regulation of NS3 is central to BVDV pathogenesis, as polyprotein processing directly influences viral replication kinetics and cytopathogenicity [26].

Non‑Structural Protein Functions

Npro is a unique pestiviral autoprotease that cleaves itself from the polyprotein and also functions as a potent antagonist of the host innate immune response. Npro interacts with interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) and targets it for proteasomal degradation, thereby suppressing the induction of type I interferon (IFN‑I) after viral infection [2, 28]. This blockade of the IFN‑I signaling pathway is a cornerstone of BVDV’s immune evasion strategy and facilitates the establishment of both acute and persistent infections [28]. Additionally, Npro can modulate the NF‑κB signaling pathway and influence cell survival pathways, further contributing to viral persistence [3, 28].

p7 is a small integral membrane protein that functions as a viroporin. It is essential for virus particle assembly and release, particularly by forming ion channels that alter membrane permeability in the secretory pathway [2]. Although p7 is not required for RNA replication, its deletion or mutation severely impairs the production of infectious virions, underscoring its role in morphogenesis.

NS2 is a cysteine autoprotease that, together with cellular chaperones (e.g., J‑domain protein 1), cleaves the NS2-3 junction in a regulated manner. NS2 autoproteolysis is critical for the switch from viral translation and polyprotein processing to RNA replication [2]. In NCP BVDV, the efficiency of NS2-3 cleavage is low, resulting in limited NS3 release and slower replication; in CP viruses, enhanced cleavage or alternative expression of NS3 drives higher replication rates and cytopathicity [2, 26].

NS3 is a multifunctional protein possessing serine protease (with NS4A cofactor), NTPase, and helicase activities. The NS3–NS4A protease complex cleaves the polyprotein at the NS3/NS4A, NS4A/NS4B, NS4B/NS5A, and NS5A/NS5B junctions [2]. The helicase activity of NS3 unwinds RNA duplexes during genome replication and transcription. NS3 also interacts with host proteins to modulate apoptosis; for example, NS3 can induce or inhibit apoptosis depending on the cellular context and viral biotype [28, 29]. Furthermore, NS3 is a key target of host adaptive immune responses, and its sequence variability contributes to antigenic diversity [26, 36].

NS4A serves as a cofactor for the NS3 protease, anchoring the protease complex to intracellular membranes and stabilizing its active conformation. NS4A also participates in the formation of the viral replication complex (RC) by recruiting NS3 and other viral proteins to modified cytoplasmic membranes [2].

NS4B is an integral membrane protein that is a major organizer of the membranous web, the specialized platform for viral RNA replication. NS4B induces membrane rearrangements, forming vesicular structures reminiscent of the “membranous web” seen in HCV infection [2]. These structures concentrate viral RNA, NSPs, and host factors required for efficient RNA synthesis. NS4B also interacts with NS5A and NS5B to regulate replication complex assembly. Because of its high conservation and essential role in replication, NS4B has been proposed as a target for antiviral intervention [2, 9].

NS5A is a zinc‑binding phosphoprotein that plays multiple roles in RNA replication and modulation of host cell metabolism. NS5A is a component of the replication complex and interacts with NS5B to regulate RNA polymerase activity. Beyond direct replication functions, NS5A engages in intricate host–virus interactions. Notably, BVDV infection induces up‑regulation of 3β‑hydroxysteroid‑Δ24 reductase (DHCR24), a key enzyme in cholesterol biosynthesis, and NS5A has been identified as the viral determinant responsible for this augmentation [30]. Increased DHCR24 expression promotes cholesterol synthesis, which is essential for the formation of cholesterol‑enriched membranous replication sites. Acute depletion of cholesterol using methyl‑β‑cyclodextrin (MβCD) or pharmacological inhibition of DHCR24 with U18666A significantly suppresses BVDV replication, an effect that is reversed by exogenous cholesterol supplementation [30]. Thus, NS5A-mediated hijacking of the cholesterol biosynthesis pathway is a critical mechanism for efficient viral replication. Additionally, NS5A interacts with host proteins involved in autophagy and lipid droplet metabolism, further linking viral replication to cellular lipid homeostasis [29, 30].

NS5B is the RNA‑dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) that catalyzes both minus‑ and plus‑strand RNA synthesis. It is the catalytic core of the replication complex and contains canonical motifs A–E common to all RdRps. NS5B initiates RNA synthesis de novo and copies the viral genome with low fidelity, leading to the generation of a quasispecies cloud within persistently infected (PI) animals [35]. This genetic diversity facilitates immune evasion, adaptation to different tissues, and the selection of variants that can overcome vaccination or antiviral pressure [3, 35]. NS5B also interacts with NS5A, NS4B, and cellular proteins such as cyclophilin B to modulate polymerase activity [2].

Viral Replication Cycle: Entry, RNA Synthesis, and Assembly

BVDV entry into host cells is mediated by the envelope glycoproteins E2 and Erns. The major receptor is bovine CD46, which is expressed predominantly on the apical surface of polarized airway epithelial cells [33]. However, basolateral infection also occurs via an unidentified receptor, indicating alternative entry pathways [33]. After receptor‑mediated endocytosis and low‑pH‑dependent fusion, the nucleocapsid is released into the cytoplasm. Translation of the genomic RNA yields the polyprotein, which is processed by Npro and the NS2-3 protease. The replication complex assembles within NS4B‑induced membranous webs that are enriched in cholesterol and sphingomyelin [30, 34]. NS5B then synthesizes a complementary minus‑strand RNA, which serves as a template for the production of multiple plus‑strand progeny genomes. During this process, XRN1 stalling at the 5′ UTR alters host mRNA stability, globally modulating cellular gene expression [22].

Newly synthesized genomic RNA is packaged into nucleocapsids assembled from the core (C) protein. Envelopment occurs by budding into the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where the virus acquires a lipid bilayer enriched in cholesterol, sphingomyelin, and hexosyl‑ceramide relative to the bulk ER membrane [34]. This selective lipid sorting suggests specific interactions between viral proteins and host lipid‑transfer machinery. Mature virions are then transported through the secretory pathway and released from the cell. Notably, BVDV can also spread via direct cell‑to‑cell transmission, which is resistant to antibody neutralization and requires cell‑cell contacts and clathrin‑mediated endocytosis [20]. This mode of dissemination is particularly important for the virus to establish persistent infection in the face of host humoral immunity and may facilitate transplacental transmission to the fetus [20].

Modulation of Host Antiviral Pathways by NSPs

In addition to Npro’s degradation of IRF3, multiple NSPs contribute to the subversion of innate immunity. NS5A, through up‑regulation of DHCR24 and cholesterol synthesis, not only supports replication but also alters membrane fluidity, which can impact interferon‑signaling platforms [28, 30]. The ER stress‑induced transcription factor DDIT3 (DNA‑damage‑inducible transcript 3) is strongly up‑regulated during BVDV infection and plays a critical role in suppressing IFN‑I production [31]. DDIT3 activates NF‑κB, which drives expression of OTU deubiquitinase 1 (OTUD1). OTUD1 stabilizes the E3 ubiquitin ligase Smurf1 by deubiquitination, leading to the degradation of mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein (MAVS) and consequent inhibition of IFN‑I induction [31]. Thus, BVDV uses a DDIT3‑OTUD1‑Smurf1‑MAVS axis to silence innate immune detection, a pathway that may be exploited by the virus to establish persistent infection in the fetus [13, 31]. Moreover, integrative transcriptomics and proteomics analyses have revealed that BVDV infection broadly down‑regulates apoptosis‑related genes, inflammatory factors, and antiviral mediators while up‑regulating autophagy and metabolic pathways, further illustrating the virus’s sophisticated manipulation of host cell biology [29].

Role of NSPs in Persistent Infection and Disease Outcome

The establishment of persistent infection (PI) following in utero infection before approximately 125 days of gestation is the central feature of BVDV epidemiology [7, 13]. PI calves are immunotolerant to the virus and shed it throughout life. Recent evidence indicates that this immunotolerance arises from a blockade in lymphocyte activation, with marked down‑regulation of type I interferons and lymphocyte markers between 97 and 190 days of gestation [13]. The quasispecies nature of BVDV within PI animals, particularly the compartmentalization of variants in the central nervous system, suggests that NSP‑driven replication variability contributes to tissue tropism and viral persistence [35]. Furthermore, superinfection of PI cattle with a cytopathic BVDV strain triggers mucosal disease (MD), a lethal condition characterized by severe enteritis and hemorrhages [24]. The molecular basis of MD involves the emergence of CP virus through recombination, duplication, or mutation events that alter NS2‑3 processing, leading to uncontrolled NS3 expression and cytopathology [2, 26].

In summary, the non‑structural proteins of BVDV form an intricate network that drives viral RNA replication, orchestrates the assembly of cholesterol‑rich replication platforms, and executes a multi‑pronged assault on the host innate immune system. Understanding these molecular mechanisms is essential for the rational design of antiviral agents and vaccines, as well as for the development of improved diagnostic tools that can detect genetically diverse BVDV strains [1, 6, 8, 32].

Immune Evasion Strategies of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), a member of the genus Pestivirus within the Flaviviridae family, has evolved a remarkable arsenal of immune evasion mechanisms that enable it to establish acute, persistent, and recrudescent infections in cattle and other ruminants [3, 28]. These strategies target both innate and adaptive arms of the host immune system, allowing the virus to subvert antiviral defenses, facilitate replication, and secure its maintenance in populations through the generation of persistently infected (PI) animals. The following sections dissect the molecular and cellular underpinnings of these evasion tactics, drawing on recent advances in the field.

Subversion of the Type I Interferon Response

The type I interferon (IFN-I) system constitutes the first line of antiviral defense, and BVDV has developed multiple mechanisms to dismantle this pathway. The viral N-terminal autoprotease (Npro) is a central player in this process. Npro targets the interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) for proteasomal degradation, thereby preventing the transcriptional activation of IFN-β [2, 28]. By eliminating IRF3, BVDV effectively silences the initial IFN-I response in infected cells. This suppression is critical for the non-cytopathic (NCP) biotype, which is the predominant form responsible for persistent infection.

Beyond Npro, BVDV exploits the host protein DNA damage-inducible transcript 3 (DDIT3) to further inhibit IFN-I production. During BVDV infection, DDIT3 expression is strongly upregulated [31]. DDIT3 then activates NF-κB signaling, which in turn drives expression of the ovarian tumor domain-containing deubiquitinase 1 (OTUD1). OTUD1 stabilizes the E3 ubiquitin ligase Smurf1 by removing its ubiquitin chains, and Smurf1 subsequently degrades the mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein (MAVS) [31]. MAVS is a pivotal adaptor in the RIG-I-like receptor (RLR) pathway, and its degradation severs the signaling cascade that would otherwise lead to IFN-β induction. This DDIT3-OTUD1-MAVS axis represents a sophisticated mechanism by which BVDV hijacks a host stress response to quell innate immunity.

Additionally, BVDV non-structural proteins contribute to the suppression of IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs). Integrative transcriptomics and proteomics analyses of BVDV-infected MDBK cells have revealed a global downregulation of antiviral elements, including numerous ISGs, underscoring the virus’s capacity to broadly inhibit the interferon-mediated antiviral state [29]. The virus also modulates the expression of heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70), which has been implicated in blocking early BVDV infection; quercetin inhibits Hsp70 and thereby reduces viral replication, suggesting that BVDV may co-opt Hsp70 to dampen antiviral responses [5].

Modulation of NF-κB and Apoptosis Pathways

BVDV exhibits a dichotomous relationship with the NF-κB signaling pathway. On one hand, the virus activates NF-κB to drive expression of pro-survival and anti-apoptotic genes, which can paradoxically promote viral replication by preventing premature cell death [28, 29]. On the other hand, as noted above, NF-κB activation is channeled through DDIT3 to upregulate OTUD1 and ultimately degrade MAVS [31]. This careful balancing act ensures that NF-κB activity is harnessed for viral benefit rather than for mounting a robust antiviral response.

Control of apoptosis is another critical evasion tactic. BVDV, particularly the NCP biotype, actively inhibits apoptosis in infected cells to maintain a viable environment for viral replication. Transcriptomic and proteomic profiling has shown that anti-apoptotic factors are upregulated while pro-apoptotic elements are suppressed during BVDV infection [29]. This inhibition of programmed cell death allows the virus to establish persistent infections in individual cells and tissues. In contrast, the cytopathic (CP) biotype induces apoptosis, a phenomenon linked to the pathogenesis of mucosal disease, but this is typically a consequence of superinfection of a PI animal [24, 26].

Induction of Autophagy and Metabolic Hijacking

BVDV not only evades host defenses but also actively co-opts host cellular machinery to support its replication. Autophagy, a catabolic process usually involved in cellular homeostasis and pathogen clearance, is upregulated during BVDV infection [29]. The virus appears to exploit autophagic membranes as scaffolds for replication complex assembly, a strategy shared with other flaviviruses. Integrative omics data further indicate that BVDV infection stimulates metabolic pathways, including lipid metabolism and cholesterol synthesis [29, 30]. Specifically, the virus upregulates 3β-hydroxysteroid-Δ24 reductase (DHCR24), a key enzyme in cholesterol biosynthesis, via its nonstructural protein NS5A [30]. The resulting increase in cholesterol is essential for viral entry and replication, as cholesterol depletion with methyl-β-cyclodextrin or DHCR24 knockdown significantly impairs BVDV production [30]. This metabolic reprogramming diverts host resources toward viral needs while simultaneously evading the immune surveillance that might be triggered by altered lipid homeostasis.

Evasion of Adaptive Immunity: Antigenic Variation and Cell-to-Cell Transmission

BVDV has evolved mechanisms to circumvent neutralizing antibodies and cytotoxic T-cell responses. The envelope glycoprotein E2 is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies, yet it harbors a high degree of antigenic variability [26, 36]. This hypervariability, particularly in the BVDV-1 and BVDV-2 species and their numerous subgenotypes (at least 21 for BVDV-1 and 4 for BVDV-2 [4, 8]), allows the virus to escape pre-existing immunity. Furthermore, quasispecies dynamics within PI animals generate a cloud of viral variants that can rapidly adapt to immune pressure [35]. Clonal sequencing of E2 and NS5B regions in PI cattle has revealed tissue-specific compartmentalization of viral variants, with the central nervous system serving as a particularly important reservoir [35].

A particularly insidious evasion strategy is the use of direct cell-to-cell transmission. BVDV can spread from an infected cell to adjacent uninfected cells via intercellular contacts, a mode of transmission that is completely resistant to neutralization by antibodies [20]. This process requires clathrin-mediated endocytosis and involves coreceptors distinct from the primary receptor CD46. By employing cell-to-cell spread, BVDV can propagate even in the face of high titers of neutralizing antibodies, explaining why vaccination is often insufficient to prevent fetal infection and the birth of PI calves [15, 20].

Induction of Fetal Immunotolerance as the Ultimate Evasion

The most profound immune evasion strategy of BVDV is the establishment of persistent infection in fetuses infected between approximately 40 and 125 days of gestation. These PI animals are born immunotolerant to the virus, meaning they do not mount an adaptive immune response and shed virus lifelong [7, 13]. The mechanism underlying this immunotolerance has been elucidated in elegant in vivo studies. Infection of the fetus at day 75 of gestation initially triggers an innate immune response and antigen presentation to T cells by day 97, but by day 190, a marked attenuation of lymphocyte activation occurs [13]. Microarray and RT-qPCR analyses reveal a downregulation of type I interferons and lymphocyte markers, suggesting that immunotolerance arises from a blockade in lymphocyte activation rather than from clonal deletion [13]. This developmental window of susceptibility is exploited by BVDV to create a carrier state that perpetuates the virus in cattle herds, making eradication efforts extraordinarily challenging.

Broader Implications: Co-infection and Host Range

The immune suppression induced by BVDV also predisposes cattle to secondary infections, exacerbating disease outcomes. BVDV can infect macrophages and impair their function, as demonstrated by the persistent contamination of a bovine macrophage cell line (Bomac) with BVDV [37]. This viral burden can alter cellular responses to bacterial pathogens like Mycoplasma bovis, potentially exacerbating bovine respiratory disease complex. Moreover, BVDV’s ability to evade immunity extends to heterologous hosts, including sheep, goats, deer, and even wild boar, creating wildlife reservoirs that complicate control programs [11, 18, 19, 21, 27]. The virus has been detected in over 40 species, and persistent infections have been documented in white-tailed deer, alpacas, and mountain goats [18, 21]. Such host range flexibility underscores the robustness of BVDV’s immune evasion toolkit.

In summary, BVDV employs a multifaceted array of immune evasion strategies that target innate sensors, apoptotic machinery, metabolic pathways, and adaptive responses. These mechanisms collectively enable the virus to establish persistent infections, evade vaccination, and maintain global circulation. Understanding these strategies at a molecular level is essential for designing next-generation vaccines and antiviral interventions that can overcome BVDV’s formidable defenses.

Clinical Manifestations and Pathological Consequences of BVDV Infection

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) is a globally distributed pathogen of the genus Pestivirus within the family Flaviviridae, responsible for a remarkably broad spectrum of clinical disease that imposes substantial economic burdens on the cattle industry worldwide [1, 4, 7]. The clinical manifestations of BVDV infection are not monolithic; rather, they are profoundly influenced by a complex interplay of viral factors, including genotype (BVDV-1 versus BVDV-2), biotype (cytopathic [CP] versus non-cytopathic [NCP]), and strain virulence, as well as host factors such as immune status, age, pregnancy status, and the presence of concurrent infections [3, 7, 17]. The pathological consequences range from subclinical, transient infections to severe, fatal disease, with the most devastating outcomes observed following in utero infection, which can lead to the birth of persistently infected (PI) animals that serve as the primary reservoirs for viral maintenance and transmission within and between herds [7, 13, 18]. Understanding the full clinical and pathological spectrum is essential for effective diagnosis, control, and eradication strategies.

Acute Infection in Immunocompetent Postnatal Cattle

Acute infection of immunocompetent, postnatal cattle with BVDV typically results in a transient, often subclinical or mild disease, with an incubation period of 3 to 7 days [7]. The clinical signs observed are highly variable and depend on the virulence of the infecting strain. Classical acute BVDV infection is characterized by pyrexia (fever often exceeding 40°C), leukopenia, depression, anorexia, and a reduction in milk production in lactating cows [7, 10]. Oronasal erosions and ulcerations are common, often observed on the muzzle, oral mucosa, and dental pad. Gastrointestinal signs, including profuse, watery diarrhea, are a hallmark of the disease, though they may be absent in milder cases [2, 10]. The diarrhea is often accompanied by dehydration and weight loss. Respiratory signs, such as nasal discharge, ocular discharge, coughing, and dyspnea, are also frequently observed, reflecting the virus's tropism for respiratory epithelial cells and its role as a key component of the bovine respiratory disease complex (BRDC) [7, 33, 39]. The virus is shed in high concentrations in nasal secretions, saliva, feces, and urine during the acute phase, facilitating rapid horizontal transmission within a herd [7, 33].

The pathological basis of these clinical signs is multifactorial. The virus initially replicates in the mucosal epithelium of the upper respiratory tract and oropharynx following oronasal exposure [33]. From there, it disseminates via the bloodstream to lymphoid tissues, including the tonsils, spleen, and lymph nodes, where it replicates extensively in macrophages and lymphocytes [7, 37]. This lymphotropism is a critical driver of the profound immunosuppression that characterizes BVDV infection. The virus induces a transient but severe leukopenia, affecting both B and T lymphocytes, which compromises the host's ability to mount effective immune responses against secondary bacterial or viral pathogens [7, 28]. This immunosuppressive effect is a major contributor to the economic impact of BVDV, as it predisposes cattle to severe outbreaks of BRDC and other secondary infections [7, 16]. Histopathologically, acute infection is associated with lymphoid depletion and necrosis in Peyer's patches, lymph nodes, and the spleen, along with erosion and necrosis of the gastrointestinal mucosa [7, 24].

Hemorrhagic Syndrome and Thrombocytopenia

A particularly severe and often fatal manifestation of acute BVDV infection is the hemorrhagic syndrome, most frequently associated with highly virulent strains of BVDV-2 [17, 26]. This syndrome is characterized by a profound thrombocytopenia, leading to widespread petechial and ecchymotic hemorrhages on serosal and mucosal surfaces, including the oral cavity, nasal passages, conjunctiva, and vulva [17]. Affected animals may exhibit epistaxis, melena, hematuria, and bleeding from injection sites. The disease course is rapid, often culminating in death within a few days due to hemorrhagic shock or secondary infections. The pathogenesis of this syndrome is linked to the ability of certain BVDV-2 strains to infect and destroy megakaryocytes in the bone marrow, leading to a dramatic drop in platelet production [17]. Additionally, the virus can induce direct endothelial cell damage, further contributing to the hemorrhagic diathesis. While BVDV-1 strains can occasionally cause similar signs, the hemorrhagic syndrome is a defining feature of highly pathogenic BVDV-2 infections [17, 26].

Reproductive Failure and Fetal Infection

The reproductive consequences of BVDV infection are among the most economically damaging aspects of the disease, encompassing a wide range of outcomes from infertility and early embryonic death to abortion, stillbirth, congenital malformations, and the birth of PI calves [7, 15, 38]. The outcome of fetal infection is exquisitely dependent on the stage of gestation at which infection occurs.

Infection before approximately day 45 of gestation often results in early embryonic death and resorption, leading to apparent infertility and irregular return to estrus [38]. Infection between approximately day 45 and day 125 of gestation is the critical window for the establishment of persistent infection. During this period, the fetal immune system is still developing and is incapable of recognizing the virus as foreign. Consequently, the fetus mounts no adaptive immune response and becomes immunotolerant to the infecting viral strain [7, 13]. This PI calf is born viremic, sheds large quantities of virus throughout its life, and serves as the primary reservoir for BVDV within a herd [7, 18, 35]. The mechanisms underlying this immunotolerance are complex and involve a profound attenuation of lymphocyte activation and a downregulation of type I interferon responses within the fetal spleen, which becomes evident between gestational days 97 and 190 [13].

Infection between approximately day 125 and day 180 of gestation can result in abortion, stillbirth, or the birth of weak, non-viable calves. Infection after day 180 of gestation typically results in a transient fetal infection, as the fetal immune system is sufficiently mature to mount an effective immune response, clearing the virus before birth [7]. However, infection during this later period can still cause significant pathology, including congenital malformations such as cerebellar hypoplasia, microencephaly, hydranencephaly, ocular defects (e.g., cataracts, retinal dysplasia, optic neuritis), and skeletal abnormalities [7, 38]. These teratogenic effects are a direct consequence of the virus's ability to infect and destroy rapidly dividing cells in the developing fetal central nervous system and other organ systems.

Mucosal Disease: A Fatal Consequence of Persistent Infection

Mucosal disease (MD) is a sporadic, invariably fatal condition that occurs exclusively in PI cattle [2, 7, 24]. The pathogenesis of MD is intimately linked to the biotype of the infecting virus. PI animals are persistently infected with an NCP biotype of BVDV. The development of MD is triggered by a superinfection with a CP biotype of BVDV that is antigenically homologous to the persisting NCP strain [2, 24]. This CP biotype can arise de novo within the PI animal through mutation and recombination events involving the persisting NCP virus, or it can be introduced from an external source [2, 26].

The hallmark of MD is the emergence of a CP virus that expresses the non-structural protein NS3 (p80) in high abundance, a key molecular event that distinguishes CP from NCP biotypes [2, 26]. The expression of NS3 is associated with the ability to induce cytopathic effects in cell culture and, in the PI animal, triggers a catastrophic and widespread destruction of mucosal epithelium. Clinically, MD is characterized by severe, profuse, and often hemorrhagic diarrhea, accompanied by extensive erosions and ulcerations throughout the entire gastrointestinal tract, from the oral cavity to the rectum [2, 24]. Affected animals exhibit rapid weight loss, dehydration, pyrexia, and severe depression. The disease course is rapid, typically leading to death within 1 to 3 weeks. Pathologically, the lesions are characterized by widespread epithelial necrosis, crypt abscesses, and severe inflammation of the intestinal mucosa, often with secondary bacterial invasion [24]. The presence of a PI animal in a herd is a constant threat for the development of MD, and the identification and removal of PI animals is a cornerstone of BVDV control programs [7].

Persistent Infection and Viral Pathogenesis at the Molecular Level

The PI animal represents the central paradox and the greatest challenge in BVDV control. Despite being continuously infected with high levels of virus from before birth, PI animals are immunotolerant and do not mount an adaptive immune response against the persisting strain [7, 13]. However, this does not mean the virus is static. Deep sequencing studies have revealed that BVDV exists as a complex quasispecies within PI cattle, with significant genetic variability observed across different tissue compartments [35]. The central nervous system, in particular, appears to serve as a critical viral reservoir, harboring distinct viral variants that may contribute to the overall fitness and transmissibility of the virus [35]. Furthermore, a genetic bottleneck has been identified during vertical transmission from PI dams to their offspring, suggesting that only a subset of the maternal quasispecies successfully establishes infection in the fetus [35]. This dynamic interplay between viral evolution and host tolerance within the PI animal has profound implications for the emergence of new viral variants and the long-term efficacy of control measures.

At the molecular level, BVDV employs a sophisticated arsenal of strategies to subvert host defenses and establish a productive infection. The virus is a master of immune evasion, targeting both innate and adaptive immunity [28]. The N-terminal autoprotease (Npro) is a key virulence factor that inhibits the induction of type I interferon (IFN) by targeting the transcription factor IRF3 for proteasomal degradation [2, 28]. Additionally, the virus can modulate the NF-κB signaling pathway, regulate apoptosis, and induce autophagy to favor its own replication [28, 29]. The non-structural protein NS5A has been shown to upregulate the expression of DHCR24, a key enzyme in cholesterol synthesis, thereby promoting the formation of cholesterol-rich membrane microdomains essential for viral replication [30]. Furthermore, BVDV infection induces the expression of DDIT3, which in turn activates a signaling cascade that leads to the degradation of the mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein (MAVS), effectively crippling the host's ability to produce IFN in response to infection [31]. These intricate host-virus interactions, revealed through integrative transcriptomics and proteomics, underscore the profound reprogramming of the host cell that occurs during BVDV infection, driving the diverse pathological outcomes observed in the field [29-31].

Epidemiology and Economic Impact of Bovine Viral Diarrhea

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) represents one of the most economically consequential and epidemiologically complex pathogens affecting cattle production systems globally. The virus imposes a multifaceted burden on the livestock industry through direct production losses, reproductive wastage, increased susceptibility to secondary infections, and the substantial costs associated with control and eradication programs [1, 7, 12]. Understanding the intricate epidemiological patterns of BVDV, including its global distribution, genetic diversity, transmission dynamics, and host range, is fundamental to the design and implementation of effective control strategies.

Global Distribution and Prevalence

BVDV is a truly globally distributed pathogen, with serological evidence of infection documented across all continents where cattle are raised [4, 10]. The prevalence of BVDV infection varies markedly between regions, production systems, and management practices, reflecting differences in biosecurity, vaccination protocols, and the presence or absence of organized control programs. In Europe, the implementation of systematic eradication programs in several countries, particularly Scandinavia, has dramatically reduced prevalence, whereas in other regions, BVDV remains highly endemic [7, 12]. Seroprevalence studies from various parts of the world illustrate this heterogeneity. For instance, investigations in Bangladesh reported an overall seroprevalence of 51.1% in crossbred dairy cattle, with significantly higher rates among animals with a history of abortion (77.8%) compared to those without (44.7%), underscoring the strong association between BVDV infection and reproductive pathology [41]. Similarly, a nationwide survey of dairy farms in China revealed that 10.86% of herds harbored persistently infected (PI) animals, and 46.7% of farms tested positive for BVDV in bulk tank milk samples, indicating widespread viral circulation within the Chinese dairy population [6]. In eastern China, seropositivity at the herd level reached 77.8%, with BVDV identified as one of the principal pathogens contributing to diarrheal syndromes, respiratory disease, and reproductive failure in a clinical survey of 8,170 dairy cattle [16]. In Mexico, seroprevalence has been reported to range from as low as 7.4% to as high as 100% in different studies, with endemic circulation of at least four subgenotypes (BVDV-1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a) confirmed across multiple states [10]. This immense variability in prevalence underscores the influence of local epidemiological factors and highlights the necessity for region-specific surveillance data to inform control strategies.

Genetic Diversity and its Epidemiological Implications

The genetic diversity of BVDV is extraordinary, with significant implications for diagnosis, vaccine efficacy, and disease control. Phylogenetic analyses have segregated BVDV into two major species, BVDV-1 (Pestivirus A) and BVDV-2 (Pestivirus B), which are as genetically distinct from one another as either is from classical swine fever virus [4, 17]. BVDV-1 can be further subdivided into at least 21 subgenotypes (1a–1u), while BVDV-2 comprises at least four subgenotypes (2a–2d) [4, 8]. Globally, BVDV-1 isolates account for approximately 88.2% of characterized strains, with subgenotypes 1b, 1a, and 1c being the most frequently reported [4]. However, the geographic distribution of subgenotypes is far from uniform. European countries exhibit the highest degree of genetic diversity, with multiple subgenotypes cocirculating within and between regions [4, 25]. In Italy, for example, analysis of 371 sequences collected between 1995 and 2013 revealed four distinct distribution patterns: highly prevalent subtypes with wide temporal-spatial distribution (1b and 1e), low-prevalence subtypes with widespread geographic distribution (1a, 1d, 1g, 1h, and 1k), subtypes with restricted geographic distribution (1f), and sporadic subtypes detected only in single herds (1c, 1j, and 1l) [25]. Poland has similarly documented an evolving genetic landscape, with seven subtypes identified in dairy herds, including two novel subtypes (1r and 1s) reported for the first time, indicating ongoing viral evolution and diversification [14]. In China, the genetic picture is equally complex, with studies identifying eight different subgenotypes including BVDV-1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1q, and two putative novel subtypes tentatively designated as BVDV-1v and BVDV-1w [6]. The dominant strains circulating in China, BVDV-1a, 1c, and 1m, collectively account for over 80% of isolates, but the continuous emergence of novel variants suggests a dynamic and evolving epidemiological situation [6, 23]. The existence of such extensive genetic diversity poses significant challenges for control. Antigenic variation is largely concentrated in the E2 envelope glycoprotein, the primary target of neutralizing antibodies, meaning that vaccines developed against one subgenotype may confer incomplete protection against heterologous strains [3, 26, 36]. Furthermore, the genetic variability of BVDV has been exploited for molecular epidemiological tracing, with the 5' untranslated region (UTR) and Npro gene serving as common targets for phylogenetic analyses, though recent evidence suggests that complete genome sequencing or analysis of NS4B (for BVDV-1) and NS5A (for BVDV-2) provides more robust subtyping resolution [8, 23].

Reservoirs, Transmission Dynamics, and Host Range

The epidemiology of BVDV is fundamentally shaped by the unique biological phenomenon of persistent infection. PI animals, which arise following in utero infection before the development of fetal immunocompetence (typically before approximately 125 days of gestation), are immunotolerant to the infecting viral strain and shed large quantities of virus continuously throughout their lives [7, 13]. These PI animals serve as the primary reservoir and source of BVDV transmission within and between herds. The development of immunotolerance in PI fetuses is a complex process involving attenuated lymphocyte activation, with transcriptomic analyses revealing a mass attenuation of the immune system occurring between days 97 and 190 of gestation, characterized by downregulation of type I interferons and lymphocyte markers [13]. The viral quasispecies present within PI animals is remarkably complex, with distinct viral variants clustering by tissue compartment, and the central nervous system potentially serving as a particularly important viral reservoir [35]. Furthermore, a genetic bottleneck occurs during vertical transmission from PI dams to their offspring, which may have implications for viral evolution and the emergence of antigenic variants [35]. In addition to PI animals, transiently infected (TI) animals, which shed virus for a period of 10–14 days following acute infection, also contribute to viral dissemination, although to a lesser extent than PI animals [7].

Transmission of BVDV occurs through multiple routes. Direct contact between infected and susceptible animals is the most efficient mode of transmission, particularly through oronasal exposure to virus-laden secretions and excretions [7, 33]. The virus is efficiently released from the apical surface of polarized bovine airway epithelial cells, indicating that respiratory secretions and aerosols represent a significant route for environmental contamination and transmission to susceptible animals [33]. Importantly, BVDV has been demonstrated to exploit direct cell-to-cell transmission, which is resistant to neutralization by antibodies. This mechanism involves cell-cell contacts and clathrin-mediated receptor-dependent endocytosis, enabling the virus to overcome humoral immune barriers and establish infection even in the presence of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies [20]. This finding has profound implications for vaccine efficacy and the ability of BVDV to maintain transmission in vaccinated populations. Fomites, such as contaminated veterinary equipment, rectal palpation sleeves, and instruments, also play a role in iatrogenic transmission, and risk factor analyses have identified practices such as who inseminates the animals and whether rectal palpation is performed routinely as significant predictors of BVDV occurrence [42]. The virus is also shed in semen from infected bulls, and venereal transmission is an important route of introduction into naïve herds [7, 38].

The host range of BVDV extends far beyond domestic cattle. The virus has been reported to infect over 50 species in the mammalian order Artiodactyla, including sheep, goats, pigs, and a wide range of wild and captive ruminants [7, 18, 21]. Persistent infection has been documented in at least eight species beyond cattle, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, eland, mousedeer, mountain goats, alpacas, sheep, and domestic swine [18]. The epidemiological significance of wildlife reservoirs varies by region. In North America, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are the most abundant free-ranging ruminant and have been extensively studied for their potential to serve as BVDV reservoirs. Experimental infections have demonstrated that white-tailed deer are susceptible to BVDV, shed the virus, and can produce PI offspring, fulfilling several criteria for reservoir competence [21]. Field studies have confirmed natural infections in deer populations, and phylogenetic analyses have demonstrated spillover events from cattle to deer and, critically, the potential for spillback transmission from deer to cattle [21]. In Europe, wild boar have been identified as potential BVDV reservoirs. Investigations in Serbia detected BVDV RNA in 8% of wild boar spleens, with the recovered strains belonging to subgenotype 1f, a subtype commonly found in domestic cattle, strongly suggesting that these infections resulted from direct or indirect contact with domestic livestock [19]. Goats also represent a significant epidemiological concern. Experimental infection of pregnant goats with BVDV-1b and BVDV-2 resulted in reproductive disease, abortion, and the birth of viable PI kids capable of continuous viral shedding, confirming that goats can serve as maintenance hosts [27]. Similarly, BVDV infection in pigs, while generally not causing severe clinical disease, presents a diagnostic challenge due to antigenic and genetic similarity to classical swine fever virus (CSFV), and serological cross-reactivity can complicate surveillance efforts for both pathogens [11]. The presence of BVDV in such a wide range of heterologous hosts complicates eradication efforts, as wildlife and non-bovine domestic species can act as reservoirs for reintroduction of the virus into previously cleared cattle populations.

Economic Burden of BVDV

The economic impact of BVDV is immense and multifaceted, encompassing both direct production losses and the costs associated with prevention, control, and eradication programs [1, 3, 7, 12]. Direct losses arise from reduced milk production, decreased growth rates and feed efficiency in beef cattle, increased mortality and morbidity, reproductive failure, and heightened susceptibility to secondary infections due to the virus's well-characterized immunosuppressive effects [7, 28, 38, 40]. The reproductive consequences of BVDV infection are particularly costly. Infection can result in early embryonic death, fetal resorption, abortion, stillbirth, congenital malformations, and the birth of weak or non-viable calves, in addition to the birth of PI animals that perpetuate the infection cycle [15, 38]. The mechanisms linking BVDV to infertility are complex and include direct viral compromise of oocytes, embryos, and fetuses, disruption of the reproductive endocrine system, suppression of endometrial innate immunity, and potential interference with maternal recognition of pregnancy [38]. Fetal infection rates following exposure of pregnant cattle to PI animals can be remarkably high; in one study, 100% of unvaccinated control cattle exposed to PI animals for 28 days experienced transplacental infection of their fetuses [15]. Even with vaccination, fetal protection is often suboptimal and varies significantly between commercially available vaccines, with some products providing only 43% protection against fetal infection [15]. The economic implications of these reproductive losses are staggering, as they directly impact calf crop, genetic progress, and overall herd productivity.

A comprehensive systematic review of financial and economic assessments of BVDV prevention and mitigation activities worldwide analyzed 35 studies and categorized the types of interventions evaluated [12]. The review revealed that the dairy sector was three times more likely to be assessed economically than beef production systems, highlighting the sector-specific nature of economic analyses. The most frequently evaluated intervention categories included control and eradication programs, vaccination strategies, and individual culling and testing protocols. Importantly, more than half of the studies provided efficiency calculations demonstrating that the inherent costs of implemented activities were justified [12]. The review also identified the private sector as the primary payer of prevention and mitigation costs, and noted a lack of well-designed studies at the national and regional level, particularly for specific production systems, confirming a need for more robust animal health economic research [12]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes BVDV as a pathogen of significant economic concern for international trade, as the presence of infection can impose restrictions on the movement of animals and germplasm. The economic burden extends beyond the farm gate to include costs associated with diagnostic testing for surveillance, the development and administration of vaccines, the labor involved in identifying and removing PI animals, and the implementation of enhanced biosecurity measures. When considered in aggregate, the global economic impact of BVDV is estimated in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars annually, making it one of the most economically damaging viral diseases of cattle worldwide.

Diagnostic Approaches for BVDV: From Traditional to Novel Technologies

The accurate and timely diagnosis of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV) is the cornerstone of effective control and eradication programs worldwide. The unique biology of BVDV, particularly its capacity to establish persistent infection (PI) in immunotolerant animals that shed virus continuously, imposes a diagnostic imperative that transcends mere clinical confirmation [7, 13, 28]. A PI animal, infected in utero before the development of immune competence, serves as a lifelong viral reservoir, excreting prodigious quantities of virus and perpetuating transmission within and between herds [13, 18]. Consequently, diagnostic approaches must not only detect acute infections but, more critically, identify these covert carriers. Furthermore, the coexistence of two distinct species, BVDV-1 and BVDV-2, with numerous subgenotypes (at least 21 for BVDV-1 and 4 for BVDV-2), coupled with the emergence of atypical pestiviruses such as HoBi-like virus, necessitates diagnostic tools with broad reactivity and high discriminatory power [4, 10, 17, 25]. The evolution of diagnostic technologies for BVDV reflects a trajectory from classical virological and serological methods toward highly sensitive molecular platforms, culminating in the emergence of point-of-care and CRISPR-based systems that promise to revolutionize field-based surveillance [1, 32]. This section provides a comprehensive, mechanistic analysis of these diagnostic modalities, evaluating their principles, applications, limitations, and roles within integrated BVDV control frameworks.

Traditional Virological and Serological Methods

For decades, the diagnosis of BVDV relied upon a triad of classical approaches: virus isolation (VI), serological assays, and antigen detection techniques. Virus isolation, often considered the historical gold standard, involves the inoculation of susceptible cell cultures, typically primary or continuous bovine cell lines such as Madin-Darby Bovine Kidney (MDBK), with samples including serum, whole blood, nasal swabs, or tissue homogenates [1, 37]. The sensitivity of VI is dependent on the biotype of the virus; non-cytopathogenic (NCP) BVDV strains, which constitute the vast majority of field isolates, do not produce visible cytopathic effect and require immunostaining, using either immunofluorescence (IFA) or immunoperoxidase (IPX) techniques, for visualization [1, 17, 37]. This limitation renders VI labor-intensive, time-consuming (often requiring 3–7 days), and poorly suited for high-throughput screening in national eradication campaigns. Moreover, the frequent contamination of commercial fetal bovine serum and even established cell lines with adventitious NCP BVDV has historically compromised the reliability of VI, leading to false-positive results and necessitating rigorous quality control measures [37]. Despite these drawbacks, VI retains value for obtaining viral isolates for subsequent genotyping, antigenic characterization, and vaccine matching studies, particularly in the context of emerging variants [1, 4].

Serological methods, predominantly enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), are employed to detect antibodies against BVDV, primarily targeting the immunodominant structural glycoprotein E2 (gp53) and the non-structural protein NS3 (p80) [1, 26, 36]. Indirect ELISAs for antibody detection are instrumental for herd-level surveillance, screening bulk tank milk (BTM) or pooled serum samples to assess prior exposure and vaccination status [6, 16, 23]. These assays offer high throughput, relative low cost, and standardization, making them practical for large-scale epidemiological studies. However, serology cannot distinguish between antibodies induced by natural infection and those derived from maternal immunity or vaccination, nor can it detect PI animals, which, by definition, are seronegative due to immunotolerance [1, 13]. Furthermore, the antigenic diversity among BVDV strains, particularly within the E2 protein, can lead to variable reactivity and occasional false-negative results when using assays based on a single reference strain [1, 36]. Complementing ELISA, immunohistochemistry (IHC) performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues, most commonly ear notch samples, is a cornerstone for the definitive diagnosis of PI animals [1, 7, 27]. IHC exploits monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies to detect BVDV antigen within the cytoplasm of epithelial cells, particularly in the skin, and offers the advantage of allowing sample collection and transport without stringent cold chain requirements. While highly specific, IHC is less sensitive than molecular methods and can yield equivocal results in samples with low viral loads, necessitating confirmatory testing [1].

Molecular Detection and Genotyping: Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and Its Variants

The advent of molecular diagnostics, particularly reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), has fundamentally transformed BVDV detection, offering unparalleled sensitivity, specificity, and speed [1, 17]. RT-PCR targets conserved regions of the BVDV genome, most commonly the 5’ untranslated region (5’ UTR), which is highly conserved among pestiviruses yet contains sufficient variability for species and subgenotype differentiation [4, 8, 17]. Conventional RT-PCR, while now largely supplanted by real-time quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) in diagnostic laboratories, remains valuable for downstream applications such as sequencing and phylogenetic analysis [6, 16, 23, 43]. The ability to amplify viral RNA from a wide variety of sample matrices, including serum, whole blood, BTM, ear notch tissue, nasal swabs, and even stored blood samples, has facilitated widespread adoption in both research and surveillance contexts [6, 16, 23, 43, 45].

Real-time qRT-PCR has become the current gold standard for BVDV diagnosis in many reference laboratories and national control programs. By utilizing fluorescent probes (e.g., TaqMan) or intercalating dyes (e.g., SYBR Green), qRT-PCR enables simultaneous amplification and quantification of viral RNA, providing cycle threshold (Ct) values that correlate with viral load [1, 6]. The technique is exquisitely sensitive, capable of detecting as few as 10–100 viral RNA copies per reaction, and is significantly faster than VI, yielding results within a few hours. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes qRT-PCR as a prescribed test for international trade, underscoring its reliability and standardization. However, the high sensitivity of qRT-PCR also renders it susceptible to contamination and inhibition by sample-derived substances, necessitating rigorous quality controls. Moreover, the requirement for expensive thermal cycling equipment, skilled personnel, and stable reagent supplies limits its utility in resource-limited settings and for on-farm point-of-care applications [1].

For genotyping and epidemiological tracking, sequencing of PCR amplicons, typically from the 5’ UTR or the N-terminal autoprotease (Npro) gene, remains indispensable [4, 6, 8, 23]. Phylogenetic analysis of these sequences has revealed the remarkable genetic diversity of BVDV, enabling the classification of BVDV-1 into at least 21 subgenotypes (1a–1u) and BVDV-2 into 4 subgenotypes (2a–2d) [4]. Studies from China, Poland, Italy, and Mexico have documented complex epidemiological landscapes dominated by specific subgenotypes, such as 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1m, while also identifying novel genetic variants [6, 10, 14, 16, 23, 25, 43]. Importantly, Oliveira et al. (2021) demonstrated that while the 5’ UTR is convenient for initial screening, it is suboptimal for definitive subtyping; analysis of complete genomes or specific genes such as NS4B (for BVDV-1) and NS5A (for BVDV-2) provides more robust phylogenetic resolution [8]. The Npro gene offers a reliable alternative for confirming subgenotypes identified by 5’ UTR analysis [6, 14]. This genetic characterization is not merely academic; it has profound implications for vaccine efficacy, as vaccines derived from one subgenotype may confer incomplete protection against heterologous strains, and for diagnostic sensitivity, as primer-probe mismatches can lead to false-negative results in qRT-PCR assays [3, 15].

Digital Droplet PCR (ddPCR): Absolute Quantification and Enhanced Sensitivity

Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) represents a recent evolution of quantitative PCR technology, offering absolute quantification of target nucleic acids without reliance on standard curves [1]. In ddPCR, the sample is partitioned into thousands of nanoliter-sized droplets, and PCR amplification occurs independently within each droplet. The proportion of positive versus negative droplets is then counted using Poisson statistics to determine the absolute copy number of the target. For BVDV detection, ddPCR has demonstrated superior sensitivity and precision compared to qRT-PCR, particularly in samples with low viral loads or in the presence of PCR inhibitors [1]. This capability is especially relevant for detecting PI animals with intermittent or low-level viremia, for quantifying viral RNA in cell culture and antiviral studies, and for resolving discordant results between serology and qRT-PCR. Furthermore, ddPCR is less susceptible to variability in amplification efficiency, making it a robust tool for standardization across laboratories. However, the higher cost of reagents and instrumentation, combined with a lower sample throughput compared to qRT-PCR, currently limits ddPCR primarily to research and reference laboratory settings [1].

Isothermal Amplification Methods: Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) and Recombinase Polymerase Amplification (RPA)

To address the infrastructure constraints of PCR-based methods, isothermal amplification technologies have been developed, enabling nucleic acid detection at a constant temperature without the need for a thermal cycler [1]. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) employs a set of four to six primers that recognize six to eight distinct regions on the target sequence, allowing for highly specific and rapid amplification (typically within 30–60 minutes) at a temperature of 60–65°C. LAMP products can be visualized by turbidity, colorimetric dyes (e.g., hydroxynaphthol blue), or fluorescent intercalating agents, making it amenable to field deployment. For BVDV, LAMP assays targeting the 5’ UTR or E2 gene have been developed, demonstrating analytical sensitivity comparable to conventional RT-PCR with a detection limit of approximately 10–100 copies [1]. Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) is a more recent isothermal technique that operates at a lower temperature (37–42°C) and utilizes a recombinase, single-stranded binding proteins, and a strand-displacing polymerase to achieve rapid amplification (within 15–30 minutes). RPA offers even greater speed and simplicity than LAMP, and its compatibility with lateral flow strip detection formats further enhances its point-of-care potential [1]. Both LAMP and RPA hold immense promise for on-farm testing, allowing for rapid identification of PI animals at the point of sampling and enabling immediate biosecurity interventions. However, these methods are more prone to primer-dimer artifacts and non-specific amplification compared to PCR, and their multiplexing capabilities remain limited. Rigorous validation and quality control are essential before widespread implementation.

CRISPR-Cas Systems: A Paradigm Shift in Nucleic Acid Detection

The repurposing of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated (Cas) systems for nucleic acid detection represents one of the most exciting frontiers in BVDV diagnostics [1, 32]. Specifically, CRISPR-Cas13a (and the related Cas12 and Cas14 systems) exhibit a unique property: upon specific recognition and cleavage of a target RNA sequence, the Cas13a nuclease undergoes a conformational change that activates non-specific RNase activity, leading to the cleavage of reporter RNA molecules in the solution. This collateral cleavage activity can be harnessed for signal amplification, generating a detectable fluorescent or colorimetric signal [32]. Yao et al. (2021) developed a CRISPR-Cas13a-based assay for BVDV, employing the LwCas13a ortholog, which demonstrated a detection limit of 103 pM of BVDV RNA and exhibited no cross-reactivity with mammalian host cell nucleic acids [32]. This approach combines the programmability and specificity of CRISPR with isothermal amplification (often coupling it with RPA or LAMP in a two-step process), enabling rapid, sensitive, and specific detection that rivals qRT-PCR in performance but with significantly reduced instrumentation requirements. The major advantages of CRISPR-based diagnostics include their potential for single-nucleotide specificity, allowing for discrimination between BVDV species and even subgenotypes, and their compatibility with lyophilized reagents and lateral flow readouts, paving the way for low-cost, instrument-free point-of-care tests. Challenges remain, including the need for efficient sample preparation and nucleic acid extraction, potential off-target cleavage, and the relatively high cost of Cas nuclease production. Nonetheless, CRISPR-based platforms are poised to become transformative tools for BVDV surveillance, particularly in resource-limited settings and for real-time outbreak response.

Biosensors and Nanotechnology-Enhanced Detection

The integration of nanomaterials and biosensor platforms has yielded novel diagnostic approaches that promise to further enhance the sensitivity, speed, and multiplexing capacity of BVDV detection [1]. Biosensors are analytical devices that convert a biological recognition event (e.g., antigen-antibody binding, nucleic acid hybridization) into a measurable physical or chemical signal. For BVDV, various biosensor formats have been explored, including electrochemical, optical, and piezoelectric sensors [1]. Wang et al. (2019) described a gold nanoparticle (GNP)-assisted PCR assay combined with a dual-priming oligonucleotide (DPO) system for the simultaneous detection of bovine rotavirus, bovine parvovirus, and BVDV [44]. The DPO system, which incorporates two separate priming regions separated by a polydeoxyinosine linker, provides enhanced specificity by reducing non-specific priming. The incorporation of GNPs improved the sensitivity by at least 100-fold compared to conventional PCR, with detection limits as low as 40.9 copies/μL for the BVDV 5’ UTR target [44]. This nanoPCR approach demonstrates the potential for multiplexed detection of common coinfecting pathogens, which is clinically relevant given the frequent occurrence of mixed viral and bacterial infections in bovine respiratory and enteric disease complexes [16, 44]. Further development of label-free biosensors, such as those utilizing surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or quartz crystal microbalance (QCM), could enable real-time, reagent-free detection of BVDV antigens or antibodies directly from clinical specimens, although these technologies remain largely at the proof-of-concept stage for veterinary applications.

Emerging Biomarkers: MicroRNAs as Diagnostic Indicators

Beyond direct detection of viral nucleic acids or proteins, recent research has explored host-derived biomarkers as indirect indicators of BVDV infection [39]. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding RNA molecules that regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally and are known to be dysregulated during viral infections. Taxis et al. (2017) performed next-generation sequencing of serum miRNAs from calves experimentally infected with BVDV and identified two candidate biomarkers: bta-miR-423-5p and bta-miR-151-3p [39]. Bta-miR-423-5p exhibited a significant peak in expression at 4 days post-challenge, followed by a decline, while bta-miR-151-3p peaked at 9 days post-challenge. These temporal expression patterns suggest that circulating miRNAs could serve as non-invasive biomarkers for early detection

Control and Eradication Strategies for Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus

The control and eradication of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV) represents one of the most complex challenges in contemporary veterinary medicine, a challenge that is fundamentally rooted in the virus’s unique biology and its intricate interactions with the bovine host. Unlike many other viral pathogens of cattle, BVDV has evolved a sophisticated strategy for persistence that hinges on the generation of immunotolerant, persistently infected (PI) animals. These PI animals, which result from in utero infection during a critical window of gestational immune development (approximately days 30-125), are the central epidemiological linchpin of BVDV maintenance and spread [7, 13]. They shed vast quantities of virus throughout their lives, often without exhibiting clinical signs, making them the primary source of infection for naïve cohorts. Consequently, any effective control or eradication program must be predicated on the systematic identification and removal of these PI animals, a principle that has guided successful national and regional campaigns. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes BVDV as a pathogen of significant economic consequence, and its control is a priority for many member nations, though it is not currently listed as a notifiable disease by WOAH, which has led to a patchwork of voluntary and mandatory programs globally.

The Centrality of Persistently Infected Animal Identification and Removal

The cornerstone of all successful BVDV eradication efforts is the detection and elimination of PI cattle. This is not merely a management recommendation but a biological imperative. The PI animal is a perpetual viral factory, shedding up to 10⁶ to 10⁷ TCID₅₀ per milliliter of nasal secretions and feces, a magnitude of shedding that transiently infected (TI) animals cannot match [7, 18]. The economic rationale for this approach is compelling; systematic reviews of financial assessments have demonstrated that the costs of testing and culling are consistently outweighed by the long-term benefits of reduced morbidity, mortality, reproductive losses, and improved production efficiency [12]. The diagnostic armamentarium for PI detection is robust and has evolved significantly. Antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) on ear-notch samples are the mainstay of many large-scale programs due to their high sensitivity, specificity, and ease of use in the field [1, 6]. These tests detect the presence of the viral Erns protein, which is abundant in PI animals. For confirmation, or in cases where antigen ELISA results are equivocal, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on blood or tissue samples provides definitive confirmation, offering exquisite sensitivity and the ability to detect even low levels of viral RNA [1, 6, 32]. The development of point-of-care (POC) antigen tests has further facilitated on-farm screening, allowing for immediate decision-making [6]. The strategic goal is to test all animals in a herd, identify the PI individuals, and remove them from the population, ideally for slaughter. This process, often termed "test and cull," is the foundational step in any eradication program, and its success is directly proportional to the thoroughness of the testing protocol and the rigor of biosecurity measures implemented to prevent re-introduction.

Biosecurity and the Threat of Wildlife Reservoirs

The elimination of PI animals is a necessary but insufficient condition for long-term BVDV freedom. The virus is capable of surviving in a wide range of heterologous hosts, creating a complex epidemiological landscape that complicates eradication efforts. BVDV has been documented in over 40 domestic and free-ranging species, including sheep, goats, camelids (alpacas, llamas), and a variety of wild ruminants such as white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and wild boar [7, 18, 19, 21]. The potential for these species to act as reservoirs is a critical concern. For a species to serve as a true reservoir, it must be susceptible to infection, capable of shedding the virus, able to maintain the virus within its own population, and have sufficient contact with cattle to allow for spillback infections [21]. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), the most abundant wild ruminant in North America, meet these criteria. Experimental infections have demonstrated that deer can become PI, shed the virus, and transmit it to naïve deer and cattle [21]. Similarly, wild boar in Europe have been found to harbor BVDV, often sharing identical subgenotypes (e.g., BVDV-1f) with local cattle populations, strongly suggesting bidirectional transmission [19]. Even domestic small ruminants, such as goats, can serve as a source of infection. Experimental infection of pregnant goats has resulted in the birth of viable PI kids that shed virus continuously, proving that goats are not merely dead-end hosts but can actively propagate the virus [27]. Therefore, effective biosecurity must extend beyond the farm gate. It requires preventing direct contact between cattle and potentially infected wildlife, managing shared water sources, and implementing strict quarantine and testing protocols for any introduced animals, including those from species not traditionally considered primary BVDV hosts. The presence of BVDV in wildlife populations, particularly in regions with high deer densities, represents a formidable obstacle to eradication, as it creates a perpetual external source of viral reintroduction that can undermine even the most rigorous domestic control programs.

Vaccination: A Critical Tool with Inherent Limitations

Vaccination is a widely used and essential component of BVDV control, but its role in eradication is nuanced and must be understood in the context of the virus’s ability to evade immunity. The primary goal of vaccination is to prevent clinical disease and, most critically, to prevent transplacental infection, which is the gateway to the creation of new PI animals [7, 15]. Both modified-live virus (MLV) and inactivated (killed) vaccines are commercially available, and they target the major envelope glycoprotein E2, which is the primary target of neutralizing antibodies [3, 26]. MLV vaccines generally induce a broader and more durable immune response, including both humoral and cell-mediated immunity, and are often considered more effective at preventing fetal infection. However, they carry a risk of causing disease in immunocompromised animals or fetuses if used inappropriately during pregnancy. Inactivated vaccines are safer in this regard but often require adjuvants and booster doses to achieve protective immunity [3, 15].

A critical limitation of current vaccination strategies is the profound antigenic diversity of BVDV. The virus is segregated into two major species, BVDV-1 and BVDV-2, with BVDV-1 further divided into at least 21 subgenotypes (1a-1u) and BVDV-2 into 4 subgenotypes (2a-2d) [4, 8]. This genetic diversity translates into significant antigenic variation, particularly within the E2 protein, which can lead to incomplete cross-protection. A vaccine formulated with one subgenotype may not provide sterilizing immunity against a heterologous strain [3, 15]. This was starkly demonstrated in a comparative study of three commercial inactivated vaccines, which found that while one vaccine provided significant protection against fetal infection (43% fetal infection rate), another provided no better protection than a saline placebo (93% and 100% fetal infection rates, respectively) [15]. This variability in efficacy underscores the need for vaccines that incorporate antigens from the locally circulating strains. Furthermore, BVDV has evolved sophisticated mechanisms to evade the host immune response, including the inhibition of type I interferon (IFN) signaling by the Npro protein and the modulation of NF-κB and apoptotic pathways [28, 29, 31]. The virus can also spread directly from cell to cell via cell-cell contacts, a process that is resistant to antibody neutralization [20]. This mode of transmission allows the virus to establish infection even in the presence of high levels of circulating antibodies, explaining why vaccination, while reducing disease severity, often fails to achieve the sterilizing immunity required to completely prevent fetal infection and the generation of new PI animals [20]. Therefore, vaccination is best viewed as a powerful tool for reducing the viral load and the incidence of clinical disease, but it cannot be relied upon as a standalone eradication strategy. It must be integrated with rigorous biosecurity and a systematic PI animal removal program.

The Economic and Logistical Framework for Eradication Programs

The decision to implement a BVDV control or eradication program is fundamentally an economic one. The financial burden of BVDV is immense, stemming from direct losses due to mortality, reduced milk production, poor growth rates, reproductive failure (abortions, stillbirths, infertility), and increased susceptibility to secondary infections due to immunosuppression [7, 12, 38, 40]. A systematic review of financial assessments found that the dairy sector is disproportionately affected and is the primary focus of economic evaluations, with the private sector (farmers) bearing the majority of the costs for prevention and mitigation activities [12]. The costs of a program include testing, vaccination, biosecurity enhancements, and the loss of PI animals, while the benefits are realized as reduced disease incidence, improved productivity, and access to markets that require BVDV-free status.

Successful national and regional eradication programs, such as those in Scandinavia (e.g., Norway, Sweden, Denmark) and parts of Central Europe (e.g., Austria, Switzerland), have demonstrated that eradication is feasible and cost-effective over the long term. These programs share common features: a mandatory or highly incentivized framework, a centralized database for animal identification and movement, systematic testing of all cattle herds to identify PI animals, strict movement restrictions on infected herds, and a sustained commitment over many years [12]. The Scandinavian model, in particular, relied on a "test and cull" approach without widespread vaccination, proving that eradication is possible through biosecurity and PI removal alone. In contrast, regions with high cattle density, significant wildlife reservoirs, and a lack of coordinated national policy, such as large parts of North America and Asia, have struggled to achieve similar success [6, 7, 10, 16]. The genetic diversity of circulating strains is also a major factor; the emergence of novel subgenotypes (e.g., BVDV-1v and 1w in China) and the presence of atypical pestiviruses like HoBi-like virus in South America and Europe pose new challenges for diagnostic tests and vaccine efficacy [4, 6, 10, 25]. The use of machine learning algorithms, such as random forest models, has identified novel risk factors for BVDV occurrence, including poor reproductive management practices (e.g., who performs insemination, routine rectal palpation) and the density of neighboring cattle farms, highlighting that human behavior and farm management are as important as viral biology in determining disease spread [42]. Ultimately, the path to eradication requires a holistic, evidence-based approach that integrates virology, immunology, epidemiology, economics, and behavioral science, tailored to the specific ecological and agricultural context of each region.

References

[1] Wang Y, Pang F. Diagnosis of bovine viral diarrhea virus: an overview of currently available methods. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1370050

[2] Chi S, Chen S, Jia W, He Y, Ren L, Wang X. Non-structural proteins of bovine viral diarrhea virus. Virus genes. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-022-01914-8

[3] Al-Kubati AAG, Hussen J, Kandeel M, Al-Mubarak AIA, Hemida M. Recent Advances on the Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Molecular Pathogenesis, Immune Response, and Vaccines Development. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.665128

[4] Yeşilbağ K, Alpay G, Becher P. Variability and Global Distribution of Subgenotypes of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus. Viruses. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v9060128

[5] Chen N, Liu Y, Bai T, Chen J, Zhao Z, Li J, et al.. Quercetin Inhibits Hsp70 Blocking of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Infection and Replication in the Early Stage of Virus Infection. Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14112365

[6] Deng M, Chen N, Guidarini C, Xu Z, Zhang J, Cai L, et al.. Prevalence and genetic diversity of bovine viral diarrhea virus in dairy herds of China.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108565

[7] Walz P, Chamorro M, Falkenberg SM, Passler T, Meer Fvd, Woolums AR. Bovine viral diarrhea virus: An updated American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine consensus statement with focus on virus biology, hosts, immunosuppression, and vaccination. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15816

[8] Oliveira PSBd, Júnior JS, Weiblen R, Flores E. Subtyping bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV): Which viral gene to choose?. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104891

[9] Basyouni W, Abbas S, El-Bayouki K, Daawod RM, Elawady M. Synthesis and antiviral evaluation of 5-(arylazo)salicylaldehyde thiosemicarbazone derivatives as potent anti-bovine viral diarrhea virus agents. Synthetic Communications. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00397911.2021.1925298

[10] Gómez-Romero N, Ridpath J, Basurto-Alcántara FJ, Verdugo-Rodríguez A. Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus in Cattle From Mexico: Current Status. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.673577

[11] Oliveira LGd, Mechler-Dreibi ML, Almeida HMS, Gatto IR. Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus: Recent Findings about Its Occurrence in Pigs. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12060600

[12] Pinior B, Firth C, Richter V, Lebl K, Trauffler M, Dzieciol M, et al.. A systematic review of financial and economic assessments of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) prevention and mitigation activities worldwide.. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.12.014

[13] Georges HM, Knapek KJ, Bielefeldt-Ohmann H, Campen Hv, Hansen TR. Attenuated lymphocyte activation leads to the development of immunotolerance in bovine fetuses persistently infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus†. Biology of Reproduction. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioaa088

[14] Mirosław P, Polak M. Increased genetic variation of bovine viral diarrhea virus in dairy cattle in Poland. BMC Veterinary Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-2029-z

[15] Walz P, Riddell K, Newcomer B, Neill J, Falkenberg S, Cortese V, et al.. Comparison of reproductive protection against bovine viral diarrhea virus provided by multivalent viral vaccines containing inactivated fractions of bovine viral diarrhea virus 1 and 2.. Vaccine. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.04.005

[16] Hou P, Zhao G, Wang H, He H. Prevalence of bovine viral diarrhea virus in dairy cattle herds in eastern China. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1751-z

[17] Ridpath J, Bolin S, Dubovi E. Segregation of bovine viral diarrhea virus into genotypes.. Virology. 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/VIRO.1994.1620

[18] Nelson D, Duprau JL, Wolff PL, Evermann J. Persistent Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Infection in Domestic and Wild Small Ruminants and Camelids Including the Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus). Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01415

[19] Milićević V, Maksimović-Zorić J, Veljović L, Kureljušić B, Savic B, Cvetojević Đ, et al.. Bovine viral diarrhea virus infection in wild boar.. Research in Veterinary Science. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2018.05.018

[20] Merwaiss F, Czibener C, Álvarez D. Cell-to-Cell Transmission Is the Main Mechanism Supporting Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Spread in Cell Culture. Journal of Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01776-18

[21] Passler T, Ditchkoff S, Walz P. Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV) in White-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Frontiers in Microbiology. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00945

[22] Moon SL, Blackinton J, Anderson J., Dozier M, Dodd B, Keene J, et al.. XRN1 Stalling in the 5’ UTR of Hepatitis C Virus and Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Is Associated with Dysregulated Host mRNA Stability. PLoS Pathogens. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004708

[23] Deng M, Ji S, Fei W, Raza S, He C, Chen Y, et al.. Prevalence Study and Genetic Typing of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus (BVDV) in Four Bovine Species in China. PLoS ONE. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121718

[24] Bolin SR, Mcclurkin AW, Cutlip R, Coria MF. Severe clinical disease induced in cattle persistently infected with noncytopathic bovine viral diarrhea virus by superinfection with cytopathic bovine viral diarrhea virus.. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.1985.46.03.573

[25] Luzzago C, Lauzi S, Ebranati E, Giammarioli M, Moreno A, Cannella V, et al.. Extended Genetic Diversity of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus and Frequency of Genotypes and Subtypes in Cattle in Italy between 1995 and 2013. BioMed Research International. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/147145

[26] Donis R. Molecular Biology of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus and its Interactions with the Host. The Veterinary clinics of North America. Food animal practice. 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30459-X

[27] Passler T, Riddell K, Edmondson M, Chamorro M, Neill J, Brodersen B, et al.. Experimental infection of pregnant goats with bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) 1 or 2. Veterinary Research. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9716-45-38

[28] Pang F, Long Q, Wei M. Immune evasion strategies of bovine viral diarrhea virus. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1282526

[29] Ma Y, Wang L, Jiang X, Yao X, Huang X, Zhou K, et al.. Integrative Transcriptomics and Proteomics Analysis Provide a Deep Insight Into Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus-Host Interactions During BVDV Infection. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.862828

[30] Ma Y, Han Y, Li Y, Fan W, Yao X, Huang X, et al.. Augmentation of 3β-hydroxysteroid-Δ24 Reductase (DHCR24) Expression Induced by Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Infection Facilitates Viral Replication via Promoting Cholesterol Synthesis. Journal of Virology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01492-22

[31] Wang S, Hou P, Pan W, He W, He D, Wang H, et al.. DDIT3 Targets Innate Immunity via the DDIT3-OTUD1-MAVS Pathway To Promote Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Replication. Journal of Virology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02351-20

[32] Yao R, Xu Y, Wang L, Wang D, Ren L, Ren C, et al.. CRISPR-Cas13a-Based Detection for Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.603919

[33] Su A, Fu Y, Meens J, Yang W, Meng F, Herrler G, et al.. Infection of polarized bovine respiratory epithelial cells by bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV). Virulence. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2020.1854539

[34] Callens N, Brügger B, Bonnafous P, Drobecq H, Gerl M, Krey T, et al.. Morphology and Molecular Composition of Purified Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Envelope. PLoS Pathogens. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005476

[35] Dow N, Chernick A, Orsel K, Marle Gv, Meer Fvd. Genetic Variability of Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus and Evidence for a Possible Genetic Bottleneck during Vertical Transmission in Persistently Infected Cattle. PLoS ONE. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131972

[36] Corapi W, Donis RO, Dubovi E. Characterization of a panel of monoclonal antibodies and their use in the study of the antigenic diversity of bovine viral diarrhea virus.. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.1990.51.09.1388

[37] Bürgi N, Josi C, Bürki S, Schweizer M, Pilo P. Mycoplasma bovis co-infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus in bovine macrophages. Veterinary Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-017-0499-1

[38] Oguejiofor C, Thomas CJ, Cheng Z, Wathes D. Mechanisms linking bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) infection with infertility in cattle. Animal Health Research Reviews. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000057

[39] Taxis T, Bauermann FV, Ridpath J, Casas E. Circulating MicroRNAs in Serum from Cattle Challenged with Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus. Frontiers in Genetics. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00091

[40] Tadesse T, Deneke Y, Deresa B. Seroprevalence of bovine viral diarrhea virus and its potential risk factors in dairy cattle of jimma town, southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Dairy, Veterinary & Animal Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/jdvar.2019.08.00235

[41] Uddin M, Ahasan A, Islam K, Islam MZ, Mahmood A, Islam A, et al.. Seroprevalence of bovine viral diarrhea virus in crossbred dairy cattle in Bangladesh. Veterinary World. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2017.906-913

[42] Machado G, Mendoza MR, Corbellini L. What variables are important in predicting bovine viral diarrhea virus? A random forest approach. Veterinary Research. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-015-0219-7

[43] Chang L, Qi Y, Liu D, Du Q, Zhao X, Tong D. Molecular detection and genotyping of bovine viral diarrhea virus in Western China. BMC Veterinary Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-021-02747-7

[44] Wang M, Yan Y, Wang R, Wang L, Zhou H, Li Y, et al.. Simultaneous Detection of Bovine Rotavirus, Bovine Parvovirus, and Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus Using a Gold Nanoparticle-Assisted PCR Assay With a Dual-Priming Oligonucleotide System. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.02884

[45] Liu Y, Cao J, Zhang J, Huang K, Qi C. Influence of blood storage time on viral RNA extraction for the detection of bovine viral diarrhea virus in persistently infected cattle. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences. 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3906/VET-1105-31