Classical Swine Fever Virus

Overview and Taxonomy of Classical Swine Fever Virus

Classical swine fever virus (CSFV) represents the etiological agent of one of the most economically devastating and highly contagious viral epizootic diseases of swine, a disease that is notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly the Office International des Epizooties, OIE) due to its severe repercussions on global pig production and international trade [2, 7, 28]. Understanding the precise taxonomic position, genomic architecture, and genetic diversity of this pathogen is not merely an academic exercise; it is the foundational prerequisite for designing effective diagnostic tools, developing safe and efficacious vaccines, and implementing scientifically sound control and eradication strategies. The virus is a small, enveloped, positive-sense, single-stranded RNA virus belonging to the family Flaviviridae, which encompasses several other significant human and animal pathogens, including the genus Flavivirus (e.g., dengue virus, Japanese encephalitis virus, Zika virus) and the genus Hepacivirus (e.g., hepatitis C virus) [1, 6]. Within this family, CSFV is classified as the type species of the genus Pestivirus, a grouping that also comprises bovine viral diarrhea virus types 1 and 2 (BVDV-1, BVDV-2) and border disease virus (BDV) of sheep [2, 5, 8].

Classification and Phylogenetic Position

Historically, pestiviruses were classified primarily based on their host species of origin and the disease they caused. However, with the advent of modern molecular phylogenetics, it became clear that this system was insufficient, as cross-species transmission events and significant genetic overlap exist. The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) has formally recognized multiple species within the Pestivirus genus, with CSFV designated as Pestivirus C [2]. This taxonomic refinement is critical because it acknowledges the profound genetic and antigenic relationships among these viruses while maintaining a standardized nomenclature for regulatory and scientific clarity. The close phylogenetic kinship between CSFV and BVDV is particularly noteworthy, as it poses considerable challenges for serological diagnosis. Pigs infected with BVDV or BDV can produce cross-reactive antibodies that interfere with classical swine fever surveillance programs, necessitating the development of highly specific differential diagnostic assays [11, 19].

The genome of CSFV is approximately 12.3 kilobases in length and is flanked by highly structured 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) that are critical for viral RNA replication and translation [12, 16, 21]. A single, large open reading frame (ORF) encodes a polyprotein of roughly 3,900 amino acids, which is co- and post-translationally processed by viral and host proteases into four structural proteins (the nucleocapsid protein C, and envelope glycoproteins Erns, E1, and E2) and eight nonstructural proteins (Npro, p7, NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, and NS5B) [35, 37]. The 5′ UTR contains a highly conserved internal ribosome entry site (IRES) that directs cap-independent translation initiation, a mechanism shared with hepatitis C virus and some other flavivirids, allowing the virus to hijack the host translational machinery efficiently [21]. The N-terminal protease, Npro, is a unique viral protein not found in other genera of the Flaviviridae; its primary function is to antagonize the host innate immune response by targeting interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) for proteasomal degradation, thereby suppressing type I interferon induction and facilitating persistent infection [18, 22].

Genomic Organization and Virion Architecture

The structural proteins are responsible for virion assembly and host cell entry. The heavily glycosylated E2 protein is the major immunogen and the primary target for neutralizing antibodies [4, 11, 27, 38]. It forms a complex with E1 and is anchored in the viral envelope. E2 is a multifunctional protein that mediates virus attachment to host cell receptors, such as disintegrin and metalloproteinase domain-containing protein 17 (ADAM17) and MER tyrosine kinase (MERTK), and is a critical determinant of viral virulence [10, 15, 17]. The Erns protein, which is RNase active and secreted from infected cells, contributes to immune evasion by degrading extracellular RNA and modulating host immune responses [9]. The nonstructural proteins orchestrate the replication and processing of the viral genome. NS5B is the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), the catalytic core of the viral replication complex, and its crystal structure has been elucidated, revealing a unique N-terminal domain (NTD) essential for polymerase activity [34]. NS3 functions as a serine protease and helicase, while NS4B and NS5A are integral membrane proteins that anchor the replication complex to modified intracellular membranes, particularly within the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) [3]. The p7 protein is a small, hydrophobic viroporin that oligomerizes to form ion channels in the ER membrane, a function that is essential for viral particle maturation and release [36].

Genetic Diversity and Genotyping

CSFV exhibits significant genetic diversity, which is a major driver of its epizootiology and a substantial hurdle for disease control. Based on the phylogenetic analysis of the E2 glycoprotein gene and the NS5B polymerase gene, CSFV isolates are classified into three major genotypes (1, 2, and 3), which are further subdivided into multiple subgenotypes (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) [2, 9, 23]. This genotyping system is globally standardized and provides a powerful molecular epidemiological tool for tracing the origin of outbreaks, monitoring viral evolution, and assessing the efficacy of vaccine-induced immunity. Historically, genotype 1 strains, including the widely used live-attenuated vaccine strains such as the lapinized Chinese strain (C-strain) and the Shimen strain, were predominant globally [7, 30]. However, a remarkable and epidemiologically significant shift has occurred over the past two decades. Genotype 2 strains, particularly subgenotypes 2.1b, 2.1c, 2.1d, and 2.2, have become dominant in many endemic regions, including China, Vietnam, and other parts of East and Southeast Asia [9, 20, 24, 29, 31-33].

This genotypic shift from genotype 1 to genotype 2 raises profound concerns regarding vaccine-driven evolution. Modified live vaccines (MLVs) based on genotype 1 strains, while highly effective against homologous challenge, may exert selective pressure that favors the emergence and circulation of antigenically divergent genotype 2 field strains [31, 33]. Studies have demonstrated that genotype 2 isolates are genetically and antigenically more distant from the C-strain vaccine than genotype 1 isolates, and that they exhibit an enhanced capacity to escape C-strain-derived antibody neutralization [9, 20]. This phenomenon has been correlated with specific amino acid substitutions in critical neutralizing epitopes within the E2 and Erns proteins, particularly in the B/C domain of E2, suggesting that ongoing immune pressure from vaccination is driving antigenic drift [9, 11]. The emergence of subgenotype 2.1d in China, for example, has been linked to outbreaks in vaccinated herds and is characterized by moderate virulence and distinct antigenic alterations, underscoring the dynamic co-evolution between the virus and its host immune environment [9, 20, 32].

Evolutionary Dynamics and Codon Usage Bias

The evolutionary trajectory of CSFV is shaped by a complex interplay of mutational pressure and natural selection, a paradigm that is elegantly reflected in its codon usage bias. Comprehensive analyses of the CSFV genome, particularly the E2 gene, have revealed a low overall codon usage bias, yet significant deviations exist that provide insights into host adaptation. The effective number of codons (ENC) values are relatively high, indicating that the virus maintains a diverse codon repertoire, likely to accommodate rapid replication and translation in the porcine host [12, 39]. However, the neutrality plot analysis and the parity rule 2 plot demonstrate that while mutational pressure (specifically, the high frequency of A and the underrepresentation of CG dinucleotides) plays a role, natural selection at the level of translational efficiency is the dominant force shaping the viral codon usage patterns [12, 39]. This fine-tuning of codon usage facilitates efficient translation within the swine cellular environment, allowing for high viral protein yields necessary for robust replication. Furthermore, specific codons under diversifying selection in genotype 1, but under purifying selection in genotype 2, map to known antigenic determinants in E2, providing a molecular signature of the ongoing vaccine-driven selection pressure and the potential for future vaccine-escaping mutants [31].

Biophysical Properties and Environmental Stability

CSFV, while highly infectious, is an enveloped virus and is therefore relatively susceptible to inactivation by heat, desiccation, and common disinfectants. However, its stability under certain environmental conditions is a critical factor for its transboundary spread and persistence. The virus demonstrates remarkable resilience in animal feed ingredients exposed to transpacific shipping conditions. Infectious CSFV was recovered from conventional soybean meal and pork sausage casings after 37 days of simulated shipment, highlighting a previously underappreciated risk factor for long-distance viral dissemination via the feed supply chain [13]. This stability is temperature-dependent, with lower temperatures favoring survival. Conversely, the virus is efficiently inactivated by standard salt-curing processes used for natural casings, such as those for sausages, but the rate of inactivation is slower at lower storage temperatures, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to processing protocols to mitigate the risk of transmission through contaminated pork products [26]. The virus is also susceptible to cholesterol depletion, and its entry process is dependent on cellular lipid rafts and cholesterol for efficient internalization via clathrin-mediated and caveolae-dependent endocytosis [1, 14, 25].

Molecular Pathogenesis and Host Immune Evasion Mechanisms

Classical swine fever virus (CSFV), a member of the Pestivirus genus within the Flaviviridae family, is the etiological agent of classical swine fever (CSF), a disease notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) due to its severe economic impact on global swine production [2, 5]. The pathogenesis of CSFV is a complex, multifactorial process orchestrated by a sophisticated array of viral proteins that subvert host cellular machinery, dismantle innate immune defenses, and manipulate critical cell death pathways to establish a productive and persistent infection. The virus’s success as a pathogen hinges on its ability to hijack host metabolism, evade interferon (IFN) responses, and remodel the intracellular environment to create a replicative niche. This section provides an exhaustive analysis of the molecular mechanisms underlying CSFV pathogenesis and its multifaceted strategies for host immune evasion.

Subversion of Host Metabolism and Autophagy for Replicative Advantage

CSFV, like other positive-sense RNA viruses, is an obligate intracellular parasite that commandeers host metabolic pathways to secure the energy and biosynthetic precursors necessary for genome replication and virion assembly. A critical aspect of this metabolic reprogramming involves the manipulation of serine metabolism, a pathway central to nucleotide synthesis and the maintenance of cellular redox balance. Recent groundbreaking research has elucidated a novel mechanism by which CSFV disrupts this pathway to simultaneously fuel its replication and dampen antiviral immunity. Specifically, CSFV infection triggers the deacetylation of phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PHGDH), the rate-limiting enzyme in the serine biosynthesis pathway [40]. This post-translational modification is mediated by the recruitment of histone deacetylase 3 (HDAC3), which deacetylates PHGDH at lysine residue 364 (K364). The deacetylated PHGDH is then recognized by the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF125, which catalyzes the addition of K63-linked ubiquitin chains. This ubiquitination targets PHGDH for selective autophagic degradation via the cargo receptors p62 and NDP52, leading to its lysosomal destruction [40]. The consequent depletion of PHGDH and reduction in de novo serine synthesis have profound downstream effects. The resulting metabolic shift suppresses the mitochondria-MAVS-IRF3 signaling axis, leading to a marked decrease in IFN-β production and a concomitant enhancement of viral replication [40]. This elegant strategy demonstrates how CSFV directly links metabolic reprogramming to innate immune suppression, highlighting a novel facet of viral immune evasion through the lens of immunometabolism.

Concurrently, CSFV manipulates lipid metabolism to construct its replication complex (RC). The virus stimulates the expression of fatty acid synthase (FASN), a key enzyme in de novo fatty acid synthesis. The viral nonstructural protein NS4B directly interacts with FASN, recruiting it to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where it facilitates the formation of the viral RC [6]. This interaction, regulated by the small GTPase Rab18, is essential for the subsequent biogenesis of lipid droplets (LDs), which serve as platforms for viral replication and assembly [6, 46]. Pharmacological inhibition of FASN or disruption of LD formation significantly impairs CSFV propagation, underscoring the critical dependence of the virus on host lipid metabolism [6, 43]. Furthermore, the virus exploits the cellular autophagy machinery to create membranous scaffolds for its RC. CSFV infection induces a complete autophagic response via the activation of the PERK and IRE1 branches of the unfolded protein response (UPR) [45]. This ER stress-mediated autophagy is not merely a byproduct of infection but is actively required for efficient viral replication. The resulting autophagic vesicles are hijacked to form a protective cage-like structure, providing a physical shield for the RC from cytosolic innate immune sensors [45]. In a related but distinct mechanism, CSFV has been shown to utilize extracellular vesicles (EVs) derived from the autophagy pathway for non-lytic, antibody-resistant cell-to-cell spread. These EVs, which contain intact infectious virions, can transfer the virus to uninfected cells even in the presence of neutralizing antibodies, representing a potent immune evasion strategy that facilitates viral dissemination within the host [42].

Remodeling the Cytoskeleton and Intracellular Trafficking for Replication Complex Formation

The establishment of a stable and functional viral replication complex (VRC) is paramount for CSFV replication. This process requires a dramatic reorganization of the host cell’s internal architecture, particularly the cytoskeleton and endomembrane system. A key player in this remodeling is the intermediate filament protein vimentin (VIM). Upon CSFV infection, VIM undergoes a profound rearrangement, forming a distinctive cage-like structure that encircles the ER and the double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) replication intermediates [3]. This structural reorganization is dependent on the phosphorylation of VIM at serine 72, a process regulated by the RhoA/ROCK signaling pathway [3]. The rearranged VIM then interacts directly with the viral nonstructural protein NS5A, specifically through domains encompassing amino acids 96-407 of VIM and 251-416 of NS5A. This interaction is critical for recruiting NS5A to the ER, a prerequisite for VRC assembly. Disruption of VIM rearrangement or its interaction with NS5A prevents the proper localization of NS5A to the ER and abrogates the formation of a stable VRC, thereby severely inhibiting viral replication [3].

The endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery, a central system for membrane remodeling and protein sorting, is also extensively co-opted by CSFV. The ESCRT-I subunit Tsg101 plays a dual role in the viral life cycle. Initially, it participates in clathrin-mediated endocytosis, facilitating the trafficking of internalized virions from early endosomes (Rab5-positive) through late endosomes (Rab7/Rab9-positive) to lysosomes [44]. Subsequently, Tsg101 is recruited to the ER, where it interacts with the viral nonstructural proteins NS4B and NS5B to regulate the assembly of the VRC [44]. A systematic analysis of the entire ESCRT pathway has revealed that multiple components, including HRS (ESCRT-0), VPS28 (ESCRT-I), VPS25 (ESCRT-II), and ALIX, along with CHMP2B/4B/7 (ESCRT-III) and VPS4A, are all essential for VRC formation [41]. These proteins localize to the ER and interact with CSFV NS proteins, highlighting the central role of this cellular machinery in creating the membranous web that supports viral RNA synthesis. The involvement of VPS4A in proximity to lipid droplets further links this process to the lipid metabolism hijacking described earlier, painting a picture of a highly integrated and interdependent set of viral strategies [41].

Antagonism of Innate Immunity: The Central Role of Npro and Beyond

A hallmark of CSFV pathogenesis is its potent ability to suppress the host’s type I interferon (IFN) response, a critical first line of antiviral defense. The primary viral effector of this suppression is the N-terminal protease, Npro. Npro is a multifunctional protein that acts as a potent antagonist of IFN induction. Its most well-characterized mechanism is the targeting of interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) for proteasomal degradation. By binding to IRF3, Npro prevents its dimerization and nuclear translocation, thereby blocking the transcriptional activation of IFN-β and other IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs) [18, 49]. This suppression of the IFN axis is so profound that it can lead to a state of immunotolerance, particularly in cases of postnatal persistent infection, where infected animals fail to mount a detectable humoral or cellular immune response despite high viral loads [47, 51].

Beyond its role in IFN antagonism, Npro also inhibits dsRNA-mediated apoptosis. This is a critical function, as apoptosis is an important innate mechanism to limit viral spread. Npro achieves this by blocking the transcription-independent functions of IRF3, which are required for the activation of the intrinsic, mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis. Specifically, Npro prevents the mitochondrial localization of the pro-apoptotic Bcl-2 family protein Bax, a key step in the release of cytochrome c and the activation of caspase-3 [18]. This dual antagonism of both IFN induction and apoptosis by a single viral protein underscores its central importance in CSFV virulence and immune evasion.

While Npro is the master regulator of innate immune suppression, other viral proteins contribute to this process. The envelope glycoprotein E2, for instance, interacts with the host protein MERTK. MERTK is a TAM receptor tyrosine kinase that acts as an entry factor for CSFV, binding to E2 and facilitating virus internalization. However, after entry, MERTK signaling actively suppresses the expression of IFN-β, thereby creating a more permissive environment for viral replication [15]. This demonstrates that CSFV can exploit its own entry receptors to simultaneously gain access to the cell and dampen the host’s antiviral response. Furthermore, the virus disrupts the function of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs). For example, while the ISG viperin is known to have antiviral activity against CSFV by interacting with the E2 protein, CSFV infection itself fails to induce viperin expression and can even inhibit its induction by other stimuli, representing a direct evasion of the effector arm of the IFN response [50].

Manipulation of Cell Death Pathways and Inflammasome Activation

CSFV’s interaction with host cell death pathways is complex and context-dependent, often serving to either promote viral replication or facilitate immune evasion. As discussed, Npro actively blocks apoptosis to prevent premature cell death and allow for sustained viral replication [18]. However, the virus also manipulates other forms of programmed cell death. CSFV infection of porcine peripheral blood monocytes (PBMCs) activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, leading to the cleavage of pro-caspase-1 and the subsequent maturation and secretion of IL-1β [48]. This process also triggers pyroptosis, a lytic and inflammatory form of cell death, as evidenced by the cleavage of gasdermin D (GSDMD). Paradoxically, while the NLRP3 inflammasome is a key component of the innate immune response, CSFV infection suppresses the expression of NLRP3 itself. Knockdown of NLRP3 enhances CSFV replication, suggesting that the virus actively works to limit this inflammatory pathway, likely to prevent excessive immune activation that could be detrimental to its persistence [48]. This delicate balance between inducing and suppressing inflammatory cell death is a hallmark of CSFV pathogenesis, allowing the virus to fine-tune the host response to its advantage.

The interplay between autophagy, apoptosis, and pyroptosis is a critical determinant of the outcome of CSFV infection. The virus’s ability to induce protective autophagy for its RC while simultaneously blocking apoptosis and modulating pyroptosis creates a cellular environment that is optimized for viral replication and persistence [22]. The disruption of host metabolism, such as the targeting of PHGDH, further links these pathways, as the resulting metabolic stress can influence both autophagy and cell survival decisions [40]. Ultimately, the molecular pathogenesis of CSFV is a story of sophisticated subversion, where the virus acts as a master manipulator, reprogramming the host cell’s core metabolic, structural, and immune pathways to create a sanctuary for its own propagation while evading the full force of the host’s antiviral arsenal.

Epidemiology and Global Distribution of Classical Swine Fever

Classical swine fever (CSF) remains one of the most economically devastating viral epizootic diseases of swine, constituting a notifiable terrestrial and aquatic animal disease as defined by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE) due to its profound consequences for porcine health and the global swine industry [2, 7, 52]. The causative agent, classical swine fever virus (CSFV), a member of the Pestivirus genus within the Flaviviridae family, continues to exert a substantial burden on pig production systems across multiple continents, with endemic circulation persisting in significant swine-producing regions of Asia, the Americas, and sporadic incursions occurring in Europe [2, 52]. The epidemiological landscape of CSF is characterized by a complex interplay between viral genetic diversity, host population dynamics, livestock management practices, and the differential application of control measures, including stamping-out policies and vaccination strategies. Understanding the global distribution and evolutionary trajectories of CSFV is paramount for designing effective surveillance, control, and eradication programs.

The global epidemiological profile of CSFV has undergone a marked transformation over the past several decades. Historically, genotypes 1 and 3 were predominant in many regions; however, a pronounced shift has occurred, with genotype 2 strains now dominating field isolates in most endemic areas worldwide [9, 31]. This genotypic shift is particularly evident in East and Southeast Asia, which represent the most significant global epicenters of CSFV circulation and diversity. In China, the world's largest pig producer, CSF has been controlled for decades through extensive vaccination with the lapinized attenuated C-strain vaccine, a genotype 1-based modified live virus (MLV) [9, 20]. Despite this, genotype 2 strains, particularly subgenotype 2.1, have become overwhelmingly predominant in Chinese swine herds [9, 32, 33]. Molecular characterization of CSFV isolates collected across China between 2016 and 2018 revealed that subgenotype 2.1d has emerged as the dominant circulating lineage, with 2.1b also being detected, while genotype 1 strains have become comparatively rare [9, 54]. This phylogenetic dominance within China is not a static phenomenon; the genetic diversity within genotype 2 is progressively expanding, with evidence suggesting that the virus is evolving under lower immune pressures and at a higher evolutionary rate than genotype 1 [31]. Critically, these emergent genotype 2 strains, particularly subgenotype 2.1d, harbor multiple variations in neutralizing epitope regions of the E2 and Erns glycoproteins and exhibit an enhanced capacity to escape neutralization by antibodies derived from the C-strain vaccine [9, 20]. This vaccine-driven immune selection pressure is postulated to be a primary driver for the observed evolutionary shift, raising substantial concerns about the long-term efficacy of current vaccination strategies and the potential for the emergence of vaccine-escaping mutants [31].

The epidemiological situation extends beyond China’s borders, with a complex web of viral dissemination across East Asia. The re-emergence of CSF in Japan in 2018 after 26 years of freedom from the disease represents a critical case study in transboundary viral spread. The isolated strain, CSFV/JPN/1/2018, was classified as subgenotype 2.1 and was found to be closely related to contemporary isolates circulating in East Asia, suggesting a likely introduction event from the continent [56, 58]. Experimental infection studies demonstrated this strain to be of moderate virulence, causing less severe clinical signs than highly virulent strains, yet it exhibited efficient transmissibility to contact pigs, underscoring its capacity to propagate insidiously within naïve populations [58]. Similarly, in South Korea, an unexpected CSF outbreak in a vaccinated commercial herd in 2016 was traced to a strain genetically distinct from previously circulating Korean isolates but highly similar to recent Chinese strains exhibiting enhanced neutralization escape [31]. Vietnam presents another intense focus of CSFV diversity and endemicity, with strains from northern Vietnam (2014-2018) belonging predominantly to subgenotypes 2.1b, 2.1c, and 2.2 [29]. The main circulating subgenotype, 2.1c, was phylogenetically clustered with viruses isolated from the Guangdong region of South China, a geographical proximity that facilitates continuous viral exchange [29]. Pathological characterization of outbreaks in northern Vietnam confirmed the prevalence of moderately virulent strains, often presenting as acute or subacute to chronic forms of the disease [24].

Beyond East Asia, CSF remains endemic in several other regions. A comprehensive meta-analysis from India, where the pig population is estimated at over 9 million, revealed an estimated overall CSF prevalence of 35.4%, encompassing data from both antigen and antibody detection [23]. India harbors significant genetic diversity with co-circulation of genotypes 1.1, 2.2, and 2.1, although genotype 1.1 still predominates [23]. In the Americas, the disease has re-emerged in several countries, highlighting the continuous threat of re-introduction even in regions that had achieved significant control [52]. The epidemiological picture in Europe is characterized by sporadic outbreaks and the persistence of CSFV in wild boar populations. Notably, environmental and wildlife reservoirs play a critical role in viral maintenance and spread in these regions. The potential for post-natal persistent infection (PI) in wild boar, particularly following infection with moderately virulent strains, represents a sophisticated strategy for viral maintenance. Studies have demonstrated that a significant proportion of wild boar piglets infected within hours of birth can become persistently infected, remaining apparently healthy for extended periods while shedding high viral loads, thereby serving as silent carriers that can perpetuate the virus within wild populations and potentially spill back into domestic herds [51]. This phenomenon is particularly insidious because PI animals do not mount detectable humoral or cellular immune responses to CSFV, rendering them invisible to standard serological surveillance [51]. The role of wild boar as a maintenance host is further complicated by co-infections; for example, subclinically CSFV-infected wild boar that subsequently become infected with African swine fever virus (ASFV) can still succumb to acute hemorrhagic disease, illustrating the complex pathogenesis of multi-viral infections in these populations [47].

The global distribution of CSFV is not solely a function of viral evolution and host ecology; anthropogenic factors, particularly international trade in live animals and animal products, are potent drivers of transboundary spread. The stability of CSFV in various feed ingredients under conditions simulating transpacific shipment is a critical and under-appreciated risk factor. Infectious CSFV has been detected in conventional soybean meal and pork sausage casings for up to 37 days under simulated shipping conditions, demonstrating that contaminated feed ingredients can serve as a vehicle for long-distance viral introduction [13]. Similarly, standard salt processing of natural casings (porcine intestines) used as sausage containers, while demonstrating temperature-dependent inactivation of CSFV, may require extended storage times for complete inactivation, especially for products sourced from endemic regions [26]. The United States, which maintains a CSF-free status, has identified the legal importation of live animals, animal products, byproducts, and feed, as well as the illegal movement of suids, as plausible routes for viral introduction [28]. The potential for an incursion into a naïve, high-density domestic swine population, or spillover into the extensive feral swine population that spans much of the country, represents a catastrophic risk that would trigger massive economic disruption [28].

The epidemiological reality of CSF in endemic regions is further complicated by the high frequency of co-infections with other economically significant swine pathogens. Diagnostic surveillance across multiple provinces in China has consistently revealed substantial rates of co-circulation and co-infection. Multiplex qRT-PCR analyses of clinical samples from Guangxi province (2018-2020) demonstrated positive rates for CSFV of 12.57%, with co-infection rates of CSFV with ASFV reaching 4.91% and with atypical porcine pestivirus (APPV) at 0.98% [53]. Another study from eight regions in China (2016-2018) found CSFV in 14 of 159 pigs, with dual and multiple infections (including PRRSV and PCV2) occurring in 15.72% and 3.15% of the sampled pigs, respectively [54]. These co-infections can dramatically alter disease pathogenesis and diagnostic interpretation. For instance, the interaction between CSFV and PRRSV is particularly complex; PRRSV infection has been shown to inhibit the replication of CSFV C-strain vaccine through the induction of TNF-α via the NF-κB signaling pathway, potentially explaining vaccination failures observed in the field [57]. Furthermore, CSFV co-infection can enhance the replication of other viruses, such as porcine astrovirus 5 (PAstV5), by suppressing type I interferon production, thereby facilitating the emergence and isolation of otherwise difficult-to-culture pathogens [55]. The serological detection of CSFV is also confounded by the high antigenic homology shared with other pestiviruses. A novel ovine pestivirus identified in Italy was found to be antigenically more closely related to CSFV than to other ruminant pestiviruses, raising serious implications for the specificity of CSFV serosurveillance, particularly if such a virus were to cross the species barrier into porcine hosts [19].

Clinical Signs, Pathology, and Disease Progression

Classical swine fever (CSF) presents with a highly polymorphic array of clinical manifestations, a complexity that has long challenged diagnosticians and regulators alike. The clinical outcome is dictated by a triad of interdependent variables: the virulence of the infecting viral strain, the age and immunological status of the host, and the presence of complicating co-infections [2, 49]. The disease course can range from peracute death with minimal premonitory signs to a protracted, immunopathologically complex chronic syndrome, and even to a subclinical, immunotolerant persistent infection [47, 51]. This spectrum reflects the profound ability of CSF virus (CSFV) to subvert the host’s innate and adaptive immune responses, particularly through the actions of the N-terminal protease (Npro) on interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) and the manipulation of cellular homeostatic processes such as autophagy, apoptosis, and pyroptosis [18, 22]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes CSF as a notifiable disease, underscoring its potential for rapid transboundary spread and devastating economic impact.

Acute Classical Swine Fever

The acute form, typically associated with highly virulent strains such as the Shimen or ALD strains, is characterized by a sudden onset of severe clinical signs following an incubation period of 2 to 6 days [61]. The earliest clinical indicators are a sharp, spiking fever (often exceeding 40.5°C) accompanied by profound leukopenia and thrombocytopenia [58, 61]. This initial pyrexia is followed by a constellation of non-specific signs, including anorexia, depression, conjunctivitis with a mucopurulent ocular discharge, and a hesitant, stilted gait [32, 61]. Affected pigs often huddle together, demonstrating profound weakness. The hallmark of acute CSF is the development of a hemorrhagic diathesis. Petechial and ecchymotic hemorrhages become evident on the skin, particularly in the distal extremities, ears, and abdomen, and are consistently observed at necropsy on serosal surfaces, in the bladder mucosa ("turkey egg" kidney), and on the larynx and epiglottis [24, 32]. Cyanosis of the extremities, ears, and snout (“blue ear” syndrome) is a frequent and severe sign, reflecting disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and microvascular damage.

Gross pathology in acute cases is striking and includes bilateral, multifocal renal petechiae, which may be so extensive as to give the kidney a mottled or "turkey-egg" appearance [24]. The spleen is often enlarged and characteristically displays multiple, dark, raised hemorrhagic infarcts at its margins, a pathognomonic but not always present lesion [24, 58]. Lymph nodes throughout the body are enlarged, edematous, and hemorrhagic, exhibiting a "marbled" appearance on cut surface [32]. Non-suppurative encephalomyelitis is a frequent microscopic finding, with perivascular cuffing, gliosis, and neuronal degeneration in the cerebrum, brainstem, and cerebellum, correlating with the neurological signs (tremors, incoordination, convulsions) sometimes observed terminally [24].

Histopathological analysis reveals a profound lymphoid depletion and necrosis within the germinal centers of lymph nodes, tonsils, and splenic white pulp. This destruction of lymphoid architecture is a direct result of CSFV-induced apoptosis in lymphocytes and follicular dendritic cells [22, 24]. The microvasculature shows endothelial swelling, necrosis, and hyaline thrombus formation, which are the substrates for the observed hemorrhages [24]. The virus demonstrates a broad tropism, with antigen detection via immunohistochemistry confirming infection of monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, and endothelial cells, as well as epithelial cells in the tonsils and kidneys [24]. This infection of immune cells is central to the pathogenesis of immunosuppression that allows the disease to progress fulminantly.

Chronic Classical Swine Fever

Infection with moderately virulent strains (e.g., subgenotype 2.1d isolates like HLJZZ2014, or many genotype 2 field isolates) often leads to a subacute or chronic disease course that is both more diagnostically challenging and economically insidious [20, 24, 32]. The incubation period may be longer, and the initial fever less pronounced. Chronically infected pigs develop progressive, non-specific signs including intermittent fever, wasting, poor body condition, diarrhea (often with a fetid, yellow appearance), and pneumonia [32, 61]. The hemorrhagic signs typical of acute disease are often less severe or absent, leading to clinical confusion with other endemic diseases such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) or salmonellosis. A key feature of chronic CSF is the prolonged shedding of virus, which makes these animals a persistent source of infection for naïve pen mates. The immune response in these animals is dysregulated; while they may eventually produce antibodies, they fail to clear the virus, and the antibody-virus complex formation contributes to immune-mediated tissue damage [32, 61].

Pathological findings in chronic cases are less florid than in acute disease but are still characteristic. "Button ulcers" (circular, raised, stratified necrotic foci) in the cecum and colon are a hallmark of chronic CSF, representing severe necrosis and diphtheritic inflammation of the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) [23, 32]. These lesions are not present in the acute form. Other findings include severe thymic atrophy, generalized lymphadenopathy (often less hemorrhagic), and secondary interstitial pneumonia [24]. Histologically, there is a pronounced depletion of lymphocytes in all lymphoid organs, with a collapse of the follicular architecture. The presence of "button ulcers" pathognomonically differentiates the chronic from the acute form.

Late-Onset and Persistent Infection

The ability of CSFV to establish post-natal persistent infection (PI) represents a critical and often underappreciated viral maintenance strategy, particularly in endemic settings and wild boar populations [51]. This phenomenon occurs when newborn piglets (within the first 24-48 hours of life) are infected with moderately virulent strains before their immune system is fully mature. As documented by Cabezón et al., a significant proportion of such animals become PI, remaining viremic, virus-shedding, and clinically normal for weeks or months, all while exhibiting a profound absence of specific humoral or cellular immune responses [51]. These PI animals are completely seronegative and are thus "silent" carriers that escape conventional serological surveillance. They are a formidable obstacle to eradication because they continuously excrete large quantities of virus, serving as a reservoir for infection in the population. Mechanistically, this immunotolerance is linked to the early and effective blockade of type I interferon (IFN) signaling by the viral protein Npro, which prevents the initiation of an effective adaptive response [18, 51]. Furthermore, this persistent state can be maintained by the viral modulation of programmed cell death pathways; CSFV can inhibit apoptosis to prolong the life of its host cell, while simultaneously inducing autophagy to support its own replication and non-lytic spread via extracellular vesicles, a mechanism that allows it to evade neutralizing antibodies [22, 42, 45].

Disease Progression and Co-infection Dynamics

In the field, the clinical picture is almost never a pure CSFV infection. Co-infections are the rule rather than the exception, substantially altering the clinical trajectory and diagnosis. High rates of co-infection with porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), and African swine fever virus (ASFV) have been documented in major pig-producing regions [47, 54, 59, 60]. PRRSV infection, for instance, can exacerbate the immunosuppression caused by CSFV, leading to more severe respiratory disease and higher mortality [57]. Moreover, PRRSV-induced tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) has been shown to directly inhibit the replication of the C-strain vaccine, potentially leading to vaccination failure [57]. The coinfection with ASFV in a CSFV persistently infected wild boar resulted in a more rapid progression of African swine fever, demonstrating the complex interplay between these two devastating pathogens [47]. This complex pathogenesis is underpinned by a profound subversion of the host’s metabolic circuitry. CSFV infection is known to hijack serine metabolism by deacetylating the key enzyme PHGDH, thereby weakening the mitochondrial-MAVS-IRF3 axis and blunting interferon-β production [40]. Simultaneously, the virus manipulates lipid metabolism, upregulating fatty acid synthase (FASN) and recruiting it to viral replication complexes to facilitate membrane biogenesis and replication [6, 43]. These metabolic rewiring events are not merely bystander effects but are central to the virus's ability to sustain replication, evade immunity, and drive the clinical and pathological progression of the disease.

Diagnostic Approaches for Classical Swine Fever Virus Detection

The accurate and timely detection of Classical Swine Fever Virus (CSFV) is paramount for effective disease control, surveillance, and eradication programs. As a notifiable disease to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), the economic and trade implications of a CSF outbreak necessitate diagnostic approaches that are not only sensitive and specific but also capable of differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA). The diagnostic landscape for CSFV has evolved dramatically from traditional virological and serological methods to sophisticated molecular and biosensor technologies, each with distinct advantages and limitations in various epidemiological contexts. The complexity of CSFV pathogenesis, including its ability to establish persistent infections and its antigenic diversity across genotypes 1, 2, and 3, demands a multi-faceted diagnostic strategy [2, 23].

Molecular Detection: The Gold Standard and Its Evolution

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and its real-time quantitative variant (RT-qPCR) have become the cornerstone of CSFV diagnostics, primarily targeting highly conserved regions of the viral genome such as the 5′ untranslated region (5′ UTR). The 5′ UTR is an ideal target due to its critical role in internal ribosome entry site (IRES)-mediated translation and its high degree of sequence conservation across all CSFV genotypes, including emerging subgenotypes like 2.1d [9, 16, 21]. The development of multiplex qRT-PCR assays has been a significant advancement, enabling the simultaneous differential detection of CSFV alongside other clinically similar swine pathogens, particularly African swine fever virus (ASFV) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). Given the overlapping clinical presentations of these diseases, fever, hemorrhagic lesions, and high mortality, such multiplex platforms are indispensable for rapid differential diagnosis in field settings. Chen et al. (2021) developed a triplex qRT-PCR targeting the CSFV 5′ UTR, ASFV p72 gene, and PRRSV ORF7 gene, achieving a detection limit of 1.78 × 10⁰ copies per reaction with no cross-reactivity to other major porcine viruses, including pseudorabies virus (PRV) and porcine circoviruses [60]. This assay demonstrated high practicality when applied to 1,143 clinical samples, revealing co-infection rates of ASFV+CSFV (2.45%) and CSFV+PRRSV (1.57%), underscoring the necessity for such differential tools in endemic regions [60]. Similarly, Liu et al. (2021) expanded this concept to include atypical porcine pestivirus (APPV), another emerging pathogen, further refining the diagnostic capacity for complex co-infection scenarios [53].

While qRT-PCR remains the gold standard, digital PCR (dPCR) has emerged as a superior technology for absolute quantification without the need for standard curves. Shi et al. (2022) established a multiplex crystal dPCR for ASFV, CSFV, and PRRSV, demonstrating a limit of detection of 4.69 × 10⁻¹ copies/μL, which is approximately one log more sensitive than conventional qRT-PCR [59]. The key advantage of dPCR lies in its partitioning of the sample into thousands of individual reactions, allowing for the detection of low-copy-number targets even in the presence of inhibitors, which is a common challenge with tissue and blood samples. In a comparative study of 289 clinical samples, the dPCR assay detected CSFV in 13.49% of samples compared to 8.65% by qRT-PCR, highlighting its superior sensitivity for detecting low-level viremia or early-stage infection [59]. This enhanced sensitivity is particularly critical for identifying persistently infected (PI) animals, which may harbor low viral loads and serve as silent reservoirs for viral maintenance within a herd [47, 51].

Isothermal Amplification and CRISPR-Based Diagnostics for Point-of-Care Testing

The need for rapid, field-deployable diagnostics that circumvent the requirement for expensive thermocyclers has driven the development of isothermal amplification technologies. Reverse transcription recombinase-aided amplification (RT-RAA) is one such method that operates at a constant temperature (typically 37-42°C), enabling amplification within 20-30 minutes. Tu et al. (2020) developed a fluorescent probe-based real-time RT-RAA assay targeting the CSFV 5′ NTR, achieving a sensitivity comparable to RT-qPCR (2 TCID₅₀ per reaction) with no cross-reactivity to other swine viruses [16]. A particularly attractive feature of this assay is that the amplification products can be visualized directly under a portable blue light imager, making it suitable for on-site testing in low-resource settings [16].

The integration of CRISPR/Cas systems with isothermal amplification has revolutionized nucleic acid detection, offering single-base specificity that is crucial for DIVA applications. Zhang et al. (2022) pioneered a HUDSON (heating unextracted diagnostic samples to obliterate nucleases)-RT-RAA-CRISPR/Cas13a platform capable of differentiating CSFV virulent strains from the vaccine strain (HCLV) [7]. This system leverages the precise collateral cleavage activity of Cas13a upon recognition of a specific RNA sequence. By designing crRNAs targeting polymorphic regions between the virulent Shimen strain and the HCLV vaccine strain, the assay achieved a detection limit of 3.5 × 10² copies/μL for the virulent strain and 1.8 × 10² copies/μL for the vaccine strain, which is 100-fold more sensitive than antigen ELISA [7]. The HUDSON pretreatment step eliminates the need for nucleic acid extraction, as it inactivates nucleases and releases viral RNA through chemical reduction and boiling, further streamlining the workflow. This platform demonstrated 100% concordance with nested PCR (nPCR) when testing 50 clinical spleen samples, while showing only 82% concordance with antigen ELISA, likely due to the higher sensitivity of nucleic acid-based methods [7]. The ability to perform DIVA directly from clinical samples without extraction represents a paradigm shift for CSF surveillance, particularly in endemic regions where vaccination is widespread.

Serological Approaches: ELISA and Multiplex Bead-Based Assays

Serological detection of antibodies against CSFV is essential for surveillance, confirming previous exposure, and monitoring vaccine efficacy. The envelope glycoprotein E2 is the primary target for neutralizing antibodies and is the basis for most commercial ELISAs. However, the antigenic cross-reactivity between CSFV and other pestiviruses, such as bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) and border disease virus (BDV), poses a significant challenge for serological diagnosis, as all three can infect swine and elicit cross-reactive antibodies [11, 19]. Huang et al. (2021) performed detailed epitope mapping of the E2 protein and identified a CSFV-specific conformational epitope within domain B/C (residues G725 and V738/I738) that does not cross-react with BVDV or BDV antibodies [11]. This finding provides a molecular basis for designing more specific serological assays that can unequivocally confirm CSFV infection.

The development of multiplex bead-based assays represents a significant advancement in high-throughput serology. Aira et al. (2019) developed a triplex Luminex-based assay incorporating the CSFV E2 protein alongside ASFV VP72 and VP30 antigens, allowing for the simultaneous detection of antibodies against both pathogens [63]. This assay demonstrated 95.7% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity for CSFV antibody detection when validated against a panel of 352 sera from experimentally infected animals and 253 field negative sera [63]. The bead-based format offers several advantages over traditional ELISAs, including reduced sample volume requirements, the ability to test multiple antigens simultaneously, and a dynamic range that allows for semi-quantitative antibody profiling. This technology is particularly valuable for surveillance in regions where ASFV and CSFV co-circulate, such as Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, as it provides a single, cost-effective platform for differential serological monitoring [63].

Biosensor Technologies: Emerging Frontiers for Real-Time Detection

The convergence of materials science and virology has led to the development of novel biosensor platforms for CSFV detection, offering the potential for real-time, label-free, and wireless monitoring. Molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) have been employed as synthetic receptors for whole virus particles. Klangprapan et al. (2020) developed a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) sensor coated with a CSFV-specific MIP synthesized from acrylamide, methacrylic acid, methyl methacrylate, and N-vinylpyrrolidone [62]. The MIP cavities, with an average diameter of 59 nm, closely matched the dimensions of CSFV virions. The sensor exhibited a concentration-dependent response with a limit of detection (LOD) of 1.7 μg/mL and high selectivity, with selectivity factors of 2 over PRRSV and 62 over PRV [62]. The reversibility of the sensor response allows for repeated use, making this a potentially cost-effective tool for continuous monitoring of environmental samples or swine premises.

Another innovative approach involves magnetoelastic (ME) biosensors, which utilize the magnetostrictive properties of amorphous ferromagnetic ribbons. Guo et al. (2017) immobilized recombinant CSFV E2 glycoprotein on an ME sensor surface and employed a sandwich assay format with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated secondary antibodies for signal amplification via biocatalytic precipitation [38]. The resonance frequency shift of the sensor, measured wirelessly through magnetic fields, was linearly correlated with the logarithm of anti-E2 antibody concentrations from 5 ng/mL to 10 μg/mL, with an LOD of 2.466 ng/mL [38]. The wireless nature of this detection method eliminates the need for physical connections to readout devices, enabling remote monitoring of antibody levels in swine herds. While these biosensor technologies are still in the research phase, they hold immense promise for transforming CSFV diagnostics from laboratory-based testing to real-time, on-farm surveillance systems.

Antigen Detection and Virus Isolation

Despite the dominance of molecular methods, antigen detection and virus isolation remain important components of the diagnostic arsenal, particularly for confirmatory testing and characterization of field isolates. Antigen-capture ELISA, targeting the Erns or E2 proteins, provides a rapid and cost-effective means of detecting viral antigen in tissue homogenates or serum. However, as demonstrated by Zhang et al. (2022), antigen ELISA is significantly less sensitive than nucleic acid-based methods, with a detection limit approximately 100-fold higher than CRISPR/Cas13a assays [7]. Virus isolation in permissive cell lines, such as PK-15 or SK6 cells, remains the definitive gold standard for confirming the presence of infectious virus. The isolation of CSFV from clinical samples, such as the 2018 Japanese isolate JPN/1/2018 in PK-15 cells, is critical for subsequent genetic characterization, virulence assessment, and vaccine matching [56, 58]. The cytopathic effect (CPE) induced by CSFV is often subtle and may require multiple blind passages, and the process is time-consuming (typically 3-7 days). Furthermore, the success of isolation is highly dependent on sample quality, viral load, and the presence of interfering antibodies or other viruses. The isolation of a porcine astrovirus 5 (PAstV5) from a CSFV-infected tissue sample by Mi et al. (2020) highlights the potential for co-infections to complicate virus isolation and downstream characterization [55]. Therefore, while virus isolation is essential for obtaining live virus for research and vaccine development, it is increasingly being supplemented or replaced by molecular methods for routine diagnostic purposes.

Pathological and Immunohistochemical Examination

Post-mortem examination and histopathology provide valuable supporting evidence for CSFV diagnosis, particularly in acute cases. Gross lesions, such as multifocal infarction of the splenic margin ("button ulcers"), petechial hemorrhages in the kidneys and bladder, and lymph node enlargement with hemorrhagic marbling, are highly suggestive but not pathognomonic [24, 58]. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) using monoclonal antibodies against CSFV E2 or Erns proteins allows for the direct visualization of viral antigen in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. Izzati et al. (2019) demonstrated the utility of IHC in characterizing a subgenotype 2.5 outbreak in Vietnam, revealing CSFV antigen predominantly in monocytes/macrophages, epithelial cells, and endothelial cells, as well as in small neurons of the cerebrum and ganglia of the myenteric plexus, confirming the neurotropism of the virus [24]. IHC is particularly useful for retrospective studies and for confirming infection in cases where fresh tissue for molecular testing is unavailable. However, IHC requires specialized antibodies, expertise in interpretation, and is less sensitive than RT-PCR, making it a complementary rather than a primary diagnostic tool.

Vaccination Strategies and Control Measures

The control of classical swine fever (CSF) rests upon a triad of interdependent pillars: stringent biosecurity, comprehensive surveillance, and strategic vaccination. Within this framework, vaccination represents the most potent tool for reducing viral circulation in endemic settings, yet its deployment is fraught with complexities that demand a sophisticated understanding of viral evolution, host immunology, and epidemiological dynamics. The central challenge facing contemporary CSF management is the profound genetic and antigenic divergence between the widely used genotype 1-based modified live vaccines (MLVs) and the currently circulating field strains, predominantly of genotype 2 [2, 9, 52, 65]. This divergence, driven by decades of selective pressure from vaccination programs, has necessitated a fundamental re-evaluation of vaccine design and control strategies [31].

Conventional Modified Live Vaccines and the Challenge of Genotypic Shift

For over half a century, the cornerstone of CSF prophylaxis has been the lapinized C-strain, a genotype 1.1 MLV. Its unparalleled safety profile, capacity to induce rapid humoral and cell-mediated immunity, and ability to confer sterilizing immunity within five to seven days post-vaccination have made it the global standard [2, 65, 66]. The C-strain provides robust protection against highly virulent homologous strains and has been instrumental in eradicating CSF from many regions, including the European Union [2]. However, its primary and most consequential drawback is the inability to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA), a limitation that directly contravenes the serological surveillance strategies essential for proving freedom from disease and facilitating international trade [52, 65, 68]. In endemic regions, particularly across Asia, the widespread and often indiscriminate use of C-strain has inadvertently created a powerful evolutionary bottleneck. The virus, under persistent immune pressure from genotype 1-vaccinated populations, has undergone a pronounced genotypic shift. Genotype 2 strains, which are phylogenetically distant from the vaccine strain, have emerged as the dominant circulating lineages, exhibiting enhanced antigenic heterogeneity and an apparent capacity to partially evade vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies [9, 20, 31]. This phenomenon is not merely theoretical; multiple studies have documented vaccine failure events in C-strain-vaccinated herds where the causative agents are subgenotype 2.1d, 2.1b, and 2.1c strains [9, 20, 32]. These field isolates possess discrete amino acid substitutions within critical neutralizing epitopes of the E2 glycoprotein, particularly in the B/C domain, which reduce their recognition by C-strain-derived antisera [9, 31]. This evolutionary arms race underscores the urgent need to move beyond reliance on a single, non-DIVA vaccine platform.

DIVA-Compliant Subunit and Marker Vaccines: The E2 Paradigm

The development of marker vaccines compatible with companion diagnostic tests has been the paramount objective of modern CSF vaccine research. The most commercially successful and widely deployed DIVA strategy is based on the envelope glycoprotein E2, the primary target of neutralizing antibodies [30, 65]. The E2 subunit vaccine, exemplified by the commercial product Porvac® (E2-CD154) and the Chinese product TWJ-E2®, overcomes the fundamental limitation of MLVs by allowing serological differentiation of vaccinated and infected animals. Vaccinated animals develop antibodies against E2 but not against the Erns glycoprotein, which is present in the virion and can be used as a marker of natural infection [30, 64, 65]. The immunological sophistication of these vaccines is remarkable. Porvac®, for instance, fuses E2 to CD154, a molecular adjuvant that targets antigen-presenting cells and drives a potent, rapid immune response. Sordo-Puga et al. demonstrated that a single dose of Porvac® confers complete clinical and virological protection against a highly virulent CSFV challenge as early as five days post-vaccination, a kinetics previously thought to be the exclusive domain of MLVs [64]. This early protection is correlated with the induction of CSFV-specific IFN-γ-secreting T cells, highlighting the critical role of cell-mediated immunity in rapid viral clearance [64].

Furthermore, the cross-protective efficacy of E2 subunit vaccines against genetically heterologous genotype 2 strains has been rigorously validated. Gong et al. demonstrated that the TWJ-E2 vaccine, derived from a genotype 1.1 E2 sequence, provided complete protection against lethal challenge with four distinct genotype 2 sub-subgenotypes (2.1b, 2.1c, 2.1h, and 2.2), preventing viremia, viral shedding, and the development of clinical signs, an efficacy comparable to that of the C-strain [30]. This finding is critical, as it demonstrates that a carefully designed subunit vaccine can transcend the genotypic barrier that plagues C-strain efficacy. However, the immunogenicity of E2-based vaccines is not universally robust. The protein’s structural complexity, requiring proper conformational folding to present neutralizing epitopes, has led to the exploration of advanced production platforms. Xu et al. pioneered a herringbone-dimer design using rice endosperm as a biofactory, producing a stable dimeric rE2 that, due to its fully exposed receptor binding domains, required only nanogram doses for protection [4]. Plant-based production systems, as also demonstrated by Park et al., offer a scalable, cost-effective alternative devoid of animal-derived components, thereby enhancing safety and reducing production costs [68, 69]. The addition of a cellulose-binding domain (CBD) as a molecular tag in these plant-produced vaccines serves a dual purpose: it facilitates single-step affinity purification and, critically, acts as an immunogenic marker to further enhance DIVA compatibility [68].

Chimeric Pestiviruses and Vectored Platforms: Expanding the Arsenal

Beyond subunit proteins, the molecular biology revolution has enabled the construction of chimeric pestiviruses and recombinant viral vectors that offer the advantages of live replication with DIVA compatibility. The chimeric vaccine concept, typically involving the exchange of the E2 or Erns gene from CSFV into the backbone of a related but antigenically distinct pestivirus like bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), creates a virus that replicates in swine and induces immunity against CSFV while enabling serological differentiation [2, 27, 65]. Although these constructs are highly immunogenic, the inherent risks associated with replicating RNA viruses, including potential reversion to virulence or recombination with field strains, remain a significant regulatory hurdle [65]. A highly innovative alternative is the use of replication-competent but genetically stable viral vectors. Tong et al. developed a gE/gI-deleted pseudorabies virus (PRV) vector expressing CSFV E2 (JS-2012-ΔgE/gI-E2). This bivalent vaccine simultaneously protects against PRV and CSFV and, crucially, allows DIVA differentiation from wild-type PRV infection using a gE-specific serological test. A single immunization provided full protection against lethal challenge with both viruses, even in the presence of maternally derived antibodies against PRV [67]. The vectored approach elegantly addresses the logistical challenge of vaccinating against multiple co-endemic pathogens while maintaining the serological clarity required for eradication programs.

The Peril of Persistent Infection and the Need for Prophylactic Redundancy

The most insidious threat to any vaccination program is the generation of post-natal persistent infection (PI), a phenomenon documented with moderately virulent CSFV strains. Cabezón et al. demonstrated that wild boar piglets infected within 48 hours of birth with a moderately virulent strain can become persistently infected, remaining viremic for months with high viral loads in all secretions, yet exhibiting no clinical signs and no detectable humoral or cellular immune response [51]. These PI animals are insidious reservoirs that can maintain the virus within a population undetected, even in the face of high vaccination coverage. This finding has profound implications for control. A vaccination strategy that only reduces clinical disease but does not completely prevent infection, a partial efficacy scenario, could paradoxically facilitate the establishment of endemicity by creating a cohort of apparently healthy shedders. Therefore, the core requirement for any CSF vaccine, whether MLV or DIVA, is to induce sterile immunity that blocks viral replication outright. The demonstration that the E2 subunit vaccine TWJ-E2 completely prevented viremia and shedding upon challenge [30] is a benchmark that all future vaccines must meet to be considered viable for eradication.

Antiviral Drug Development and Host-Directed Strategies as Adjuncts

While vaccination is the primary prophylactic, the armamentarium against CSFV is expanding to include host-directed antiviral strategies. The intricate virus-host interactions revealed by modern molecular virology have identified numerous druggable targets. The reliance of CSFV on host lipid metabolism is particularly vulnerable. Curcumin, a natural polyphenol, has been shown to inhibit CSFV replication in a dose-dependent manner by interfering with the expression of fatty acid synthase (FASN) and the subsequent production of lipid droplets (LDs), critical components of the viral replication complex [6, 43]. Similarly, the depletion of cellular cholesterol with methyl-β-cyclodextrin (MβCD) or the inhibition of cholesterol synthesis with 25-hydroxycholesterol blocks CSFV internalization, highlighting cholesterol as a critical dependency factor for the virus [25]. Furthermore, the cellular ESCRT machinery, hijacked by CSFV for both entry and replication complex assembly, presents another target. Inhibitors of VPS4A or specific ESCRT-III components could theoretically disrupt the formation of the membranous replication platforms that are essential for viral RNA synthesis [41, 44]. The structural biology of CSFV has also advanced to the point of rational drug design; the crystal structure of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase NS5B, with its unique N-terminal domain, provides a robust platform for designing specific nucleoside analogue inhibitors that could be deployed therapeutically or prophylactically in outbreak scenarios [34].

Control Measures in Domestic Swine and Wild Boar Reservoirs

The implementation of vaccination strategies must be tightly integrated with population management, particularly concerning the wild boar reservoir. In Europe and increasingly in Asia, wild boar populations act as a sustainable viral reservoir from which spillover into domestic herds can occur, undermining even the most rigorous vaccination campaigns [2, 28]. Control in wild boar necessitates oral vaccination using baited vaccines, a delivery method exclusively feasible with the thermally stable C-strain or, more recently, with specific chimeric vaccines designed for oral efficacy [2]. However, the success of oral vaccination is contingent upon achieving a high population immunity threshold, which is difficult to maintain due to rapid population turnover and the logistical challenge of bait deployment across vast, forested areas [28]. In parallel, strictly enforced biosecurity measures, including the prohibition of swill feeding, quarantine of new stock, and the implementation of all-in/all-out management, are non-negotiable for preventing farm-level introduction [28, 66]. The transboundary movement of contaminated feed ingredients has been identified as a significant and underappreciated risk factor for the introduction of CSFV into disease-free regions. Stoian et al. demonstrated that infectious CSFV could persist in conventional soybean meal and pork sausage casings for the duration of a simulated 37-day transpacific shipment, establishing that feed ingredients represent a plausible vector for long-distance viral dissemination [13]. This finding has prompted a re-evaluation of import regulations and the recommendation for enhanced holding times or chemical decontamination protocols for high-risk feed matrices.

Surveillance and Diagnostic Differentiation in Vaccinated Populations

A vaccination strategy is only as effective as the surveillance system that supports it. In the context of DIVA vaccination, the serological test must be capable of unambiguously distinguishing antibodies induced by the marker vaccine from those generated by natural infection. The use of Erns-specific ELISAs in conjunction with E2-based vaccines is the current standard, but its sensitivity and specificity can be compromised in populations with complex infection histories [52, 63]. The development of advanced diagnostic platforms is essential. The CRISPR/Cas13a-based system described by Zhang et al. offers a paradigm shift in point-of-care testing. By combining HUDSON (heating unextracted diagnostic samples to obliterate nucleases) with reverse transcription recombinase-aided amplification (RT-RAA), this platform can directly differentiate between the vaccine strain (HCLV) and virulent field strains without nucleic acid extraction, achieving a sensitivity comparable to nested PCR and a specificity capable of discriminating CSFV from BVDV, PRRSV, and ASFV [7]. The deployment of such field-deployable, sequence-specific diagnostic tools will be critical for real-time monitoring of vaccine breakthrough events and the rapid identification of emerging antigenic variants. Furthermore, multiplex assays, such as the bead-based Luminex platform for simultaneous detection of antibodies against ASFV and CSFV [63] and the multiplex crystal digital PCR for co-detection of viral nucleic acids [59], provide the capacity for syndromic surveillance, which is increasingly vital in regions where multiple swine febrile illnesses circulate concurrently [53, 54, 60].

Strategic Integration: From Stamping Out to Sustainable Coexistence

The ultimate goal of any control program, regional or global eradication, dictates the choice of strategy. In regions that are CSF-free, such as the United States and much of Western Europe, the policy remains one of strict non-vaccination and stamping out upon incursion. This approach is economically justifiable only when the probability of incursion is low and the cost of maintaining a massive vaccination infrastructure outweighs the potential losses from a single outbreak [28]. Conversely, in endemic regions of Asia and parts of Eastern Europe, the economic and logistical realities make stamping out unsustainable. Here, the objective transitions to the phased reduction of viral prevalence. The introduction of a comprehensive DIVA vaccination strategy, beginning with the replacement of C-strain with E2 subunit vaccines in high-density pig populations, is the first step. This must be accompanied by a parallel surveillance program that uses DIVA-compatible serology to identify foci of viral circulation. Once prevalence is reduced below a critical threshold, vaccination can be withdrawn region by region, allowing for the final stamping out of remaining pockets of infection [2, 52]. The path to eradication is therefore not a single tactic but a carefully calibrated escalation of measures, from blanket MLV usage, to targeted DIVA vaccination with enhanced surveillance, to final cessation of vaccination and reliance on biosecurity and rapid response, all executed with a deep understanding of viral evolution and host ecology.

Host-Pathogen Interactions and Metabolic Reprogramming

Classical swine fever virus (CSFV), a highly contagious pathogen of swine notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), represents a paradigm of how a positive-sense RNA virus can co-opt host cellular machinery for its replicative advantage [2, 35]. As an obligate intracellular parasite, CSFV is entirely reliant on the host cell’s biosynthetic and energetic resources. The virus does not merely parasitize these pathways; it actively rewires them, orchestrating a profound metabolic reprogramming that simultaneously provides the macromolecular building blocks for viral replication and systematically dismantles the host’s antiviral defenses [40, 70]. This intricate interplay between viral subversion and host metabolic constraint defines the pathogenic landscape of classical swine fever. Recent advances have begun to delineate the specific molecular levers by which CSFV manipulates host metabolism, focusing predominantly on lipid and amino acid biosynthetic pathways, while simultaneously engaging cellular stress and degradative processes to create a permissive environment.

Reprogramming of Amino Acid and Nucleotide Metabolism

A foundational understanding of CSFV-induced metabolic shifts was established through gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) profiling of infected cell lines [70]. This metabolomics approach revealed that CSFV infection profoundly alters the abundance of intermediates in central carbon metabolism. In PK-15 cells, a porcine kidney epithelial line, infection led to decreased levels of glucose-6-phosphate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, suggesting modulation of glycolysis. Concurrently, the pentose phosphate pathway showed reduced levels of ribulose-5-phosphate, while purine biosynthesis intermediates like guanosine and inosine were also depleted [70]. These changes indicate that CSFV reallocates carbon flux away from basal cellular anabolism towards pathways that favor viral genome replication and virion assembly. In contrast, infection of 3D4/2 macrophage cells resulted in distinct metabolic perturbations, including elevated cytosine in pyrimidine metabolism, highlighting that the nature of metabolic reprogramming can be cell-type specific, likely reflecting the different functional roles of epithelial cells versus immune cells in the host [70].

A breakthrough in understanding the immune-metabolic axis of CSFV infection came with the discovery that the virus directly targets serine metabolism [40]. Serine is a critical amino acid for biosynthesis, providing precursors for nucleotides, proteins, and, crucially, for the one-carbon cycle that supports methylation reactions and redox balance. The first and rate-limiting enzyme in the serine biosynthesis pathway is phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PHGDH). Li et al. (2024) demonstrated that CSFV infection triggers the deacetylation of PHGDH at lysine residue 364 (K364) [40]. This post-translational modification is orchestrated by the viral induction of histone deacetylase 3 (HDAC3), which associates with and deacetylates PHGDH. The deacetylated PHGDH is then recognized by the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF125, which catalyzes the addition of K63-linked ubiquitin chains. This ubiquitination event targets PHGDH for selective autophagic degradation via the cargo receptors p62 and NDP52, leading to its lysosomal destruction [40]. The functional consequence of PHGDH depletion is a severe impairment of de novo serine synthesis, as the deacetylated enzyme also loses its ability to stably bind its substrate, NAD+. This metabolic blockade directly suppresses the antiviral innate immune response. By reducing serine availability, the virus dampens the mitochondria-MAVS-IRF3 signaling axis, leading to decreased production of interferon-β (IFN-β) and thereby creating a more permissive state for viral replication [40]. This represents a sophisticated mechanism where CSFV actively dismantles a host metabolic pathway to not only secure resources but also to cripple a key arm of the host's antiviral defense.

Lipid Metabolism: The Engine of Viral Replication Complexes

The reliance of CSFV on host lipid metabolism is another hallmark of its pathogenic strategy. Like other members of the Flaviviridae family, CSFV induces a dramatic reorganization of intracellular membranes to form viral replication complexes (VRCs), a process that is absolutely dependent on an altered lipid landscape [6, 43]. A critical node in this process is fatty acid synthase (FASN), the key enzyme for de novo fatty acid synthesis. CSFV infection robustly stimulates FASN expression, and this upregulation is essential for efficient viral propagation [6]. Pharmacological inhibition of FASN with compounds such as C75 or TOFA significantly impairs CSFV replication, specifically at the late stages of the viral life cycle [6].

The molecular mechanism underlying FASN recruitment to replication sites involves a direct interaction between the viral nonstructural protein NS4B and FASN. This interaction is regulated by the small GTPase Rab18, a known regulator of lipid droplet (LD) biology and membrane trafficking. Rab18 binds to viral NS5A and facilitates the transport of FASN to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), where the VRCs are assembled [6, 46]. The ultimate product of FASN activity, newly synthesized fatty acids, are channeled into the formation of lipid droplets (LDs). Inhibition of FASN, either chemically or genetically, leads to a marked reduction in LD accumulation upon CSFV infection [6]. LDs are not mere energy depots; they serve as crucial platforms for virus assembly and are intimately associated with VRCs. Indeed, the proximity of the ESCRT component VPS4A to LDs underscores the importance of lipid metabolism in nucleic acid production and VRC assembly [41].

The cholesterol pathway is equally critical. Depletion of cellular cholesterol using methyl-β-cyclodextrin (MβCD) profoundly inhibits CSFV infection, specifically blocking the internalization step of the viral entry process [25]. This cholesterol dependence is likely due to its role in maintaining the integrity of lipid rafts and caveolae, which are required for CSFV endocytosis [14]. Furthermore, the engagement of cholesterol extends beyond entry; its biosynthesis, regulated by molecules like 25-hydroxycholesterol (25HC), offers a potential antiviral target [25]. The natural compound curcumin has also been shown to exert potent anti-CSFV activity by directly interfering with lipid metabolism. Curcumin treatment downregulates FASN expression, impairs LD production, and modulates the expression of activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6), a key regulator of lipid homeostasis [43]. This convergence of viral requirements on host lipid pathways presents multiple attractive targets for therapeutic intervention.

Autophagy, ER Stress, and Calcium Signaling: A Triad of Reprogramming

CSFV exploits the host's stress response pathways, particularly autophagy and the unfolded protein response (UPR), to facilitate its replication and spread. Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, induced by the massive accumulation of viral proteins and membrane rearrangements, is a potent trigger for autophagy. CSFV activates both the PERK and IRE1 branches of the UPR, and this activation is not a byproduct but a functional requirement for the virus [45]. Both pathways are necessary for the induction of "complete" autophagy, a process that delivers cytoplasmic contents to the lysosome for degradation. Pharmacological inhibition or siRNA-mediated silencing of either PERK or IRE1 pathways significantly suppresses CSFV replication, while simultaneously impairing the production of proinflammatory cytokines like IFN-γ and TNF-α [45]. This suggests that CSFV-induced autophagy serves a dual purpose: it provides membranous material and energy for replication, while also modulating the immune response.

The degradative capacity of autophagy is also subverted for an alternative mode of viral transmission. CSFV can hijack the autophagic machinery to generate extracellular vesicles (EVs) that enclose intact, infectious virions [42]. These CSFV-containing EVs originate from autophagy-related membranes and are released from infected cells. Crucially, this mode of transmission is resistant to antibody neutralization, providing a novel mechanism for immune evasion and viral persistence [42]. This finding highlights how metabolic reprogramming (autophagy) directly feeds into a physical strategy for escaping the humoral immune response.

Further integrating metabolism and immune evasion is the viral p7 protein, which functions as a viroporin. CSFV p7 interacts with the host protein CAMLG, an integral ER transmembrane protein involved in intracellular calcium (Ca²⁺) release [36]. This interaction is essential for p7-mediated calcium permeability at the ER membrane. Mutant viruses that disrupt the p7-CAMLG interaction show a significant decrease in virulence in swine [36]. Calcium is a universal second messenger that regulates numerous cellular processes, including metabolism, apoptosis, and autophagy. By manipulating ER calcium homeostasis, CSFV can further influence the host's metabolic state and stress signaling, creating a feed-forward loop that promotes infection.

Subversion of Host Restriction and Inflammasome Activation

While the virus reprograms metabolism for its benefit, the host cell mounts a counterattack through interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) that act as metabolic checkpoints. Porcine viperin, for example, is an ISG that effectively inhibits CSFV replication. It achieves this by interacting with the E2 glycoprotein, co-localizing with it in the cytoplasm, and preventing its proper function, thereby disrupting a critical step in the viral lifecycle [50]. Similarly, guanylate-binding protein 1 (GBP1) restricts CSFV by inhibiting the translation efficiency of the viral internal ribosome entry site (IRES) [37]. Interestingly, GBP1’s antiviral activity requires its own GTPase activity, and the virus counteracts this by having its NS5A protein interact with and inhibit GBP1 function [37].

The host's attempt to contain the infection also involves the activation of programmed cell death pathways, which the virus must carefully regulate. CSFV infection in monocytes activates the NLRP3 inflammasome, leading to the maturation and secretion of IL-1β and the induction of pyroptosis, a highly inflammatory form of cell death [48]. While this is a host defense mechanism, CSFV cleverly modulates this response; the virus inhibits NLRP3 expression, and knockdown of NLRP3 enhances viral replication, suggesting that a balanced inflammasome response is crucial for pathogenesis [48]. In a parallel strategy, the viral Npro protein antagonizes double-stranded RNA-mediated apoptosis by targeting IRF3 and preventing its transcription-independent, pro-apoptotic functions at the mitochondria [18]. By blocking this intrinsic, Bax-dependent apoptosis pathway, CSFV ensures the survival of its cellular factory for a sufficient duration. The interplay between these processes, autophagy, pyroptosis, and apoptosis, is a critical battleground where the outcome of infection is decided [22].

In summary, CSFV engages in a multidimensional conflict with the porcine host, reprogramming fundamental metabolic pathways from serine and fatty acid synthesis to cholesterol homeostasis and autophagy. This metabolic hijacking is not a random process but a highly orchestrated campaign that simultaneously provides the material for viral replication and actively suppresses the host's innate immune and apoptotic defenses. The identification of specific molecular interactions, such as HDAC3-mediated PHGDH deacetylation or NS4B-FASN binding, provides detailed mechanistic insight and highlights promising targets for novel antiviral strategies to combat this devastating pathogen.

References

[1] Guo X, Zhang M, Liu X, Zhang Y, Wang C, Guo Y. Attachment, Entry, and Intracellular Trafficking of Classical Swine Fever Virus. Viruses. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v15091870

[2] Ganges L, Crooke H, Bohórquez JA, Postel A, Sakoda Y, Becher P, et al.. Classical swine fever virus: the past, present and future.. Virus Research. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198151

[3] Cheng Y, Lou J, Liu Y, Liu C, Chen J, Yang M, et al.. Intracellular Vimentin Regulates the Formation of Classical Swine Fever Virus Replication Complex through Interaction with NS5A Protein. Journal of Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01770-22

[4] Xu Q, Ma F, Yang D, Li Q, Yan L, Ou J, et al.. Rice‐produced classical swine fever virus glycoprotein E2 with herringbone‐dimer design to enhance immune responses. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14152

[5] Moennig V, Greiser‐Wilke I. classical swine fever virus. CABI Compendium. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012374410-4.00425-8

[6] Liu Y, Liang X, Liu C, Cheng Y, Chen H, Baloch AS, et al.. Fatty Acid Synthase Is Involved in Classical Swine Fever Virus Replication by Interaction with NS4B. Journal of Virology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00781-21

[7] Zhang Y, Li Q, Wang R, Wang L, Wang X, Luo J, et al.. Differentiation of Classical Swine Fever Virus Virulent and Vaccine Strains by CRISPR/Cas13a. Microbiology spectrum. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00891-22

[8] Cagatay GN, Antos A, Suckstorff O, Isken O, Tautz N, Becher P, et al.. Porcine Complement Regulatory Protein CD46 Is a Major Receptor for Atypical Porcine Pestivirus but Not for Classical Swine Fever Virus. Journal of Virology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02186-20

[9] Fatima M, Luo Y, Zhang L, Wang P, Song H, Fu Y, et al.. Genotyping and Molecular Characterization of Classical Swine Fever Virus Isolated in China during 2016–2018. Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13040664

[10] Yuan F, Li D, Li C, Zhang Y, Song H, Li S, et al.. ADAM17 is an essential attachment factor for classical swine fever virus. PLoS Pathogens. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1009393

[11] Huang Y, Meyer D, Postel A, Tsai K, Liu H, Yang C, et al.. Identification of a Common Conformational Epitope on the Glycoprotein E2 of Classical Swine Fever Virus and Border Disease Virus. Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13081655

[12] Patil SS, Indrabalan UB, Suresh K, Shome B. Analysis of codon usage bias of classical swine fever virus. Veterinary World. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.1450-1458

[13] Stoian A, Petrovan V, Constance L, Olcha M, Dee S, Diel D, et al.. Stability of classical swine fever virus and pseudorabies virus in animal feed ingredients exposed to transpacific shipping conditions.. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13498

[14] Zhang Y, Liu Y, Xiao F, Liu C, Liang X, Chen J, et al.. Rab5, Rab7, and Rab11 Are Required for Caveola-Dependent Endocytosis of Classical Swine Fever Virus in Porcine Alveolar Macrophages. Journal of Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00797-18

[15] Zheng G, Li L, Zhang Y, Qu L, Wang W, Li M, et al.. MERTK is a host factor that promotes classical swine fever virus entry and antagonizes innate immune response in PK-15 cells. Emerging Microbes and Infections. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1738278

[16] Tu F, Yang X, Xu S, Chen D, Zhou L, Ge X, et al.. Development of a fluorescent probe-based real-time reverse transcription recombinase-aided amplification assay for the rapid detection of classical swine fever virus.. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13849

[17] Vuono E, Ramírez-Medina E, Azzinaro P, Berggren K, Rai A, Pruitt S, et al.. SERTA Domain Containing Protein 1 (SERTAD1) Interacts with Classical Swine Fever Virus Structural Glycoprotein E2, Which Is Involved in Virus Virulence in Swine. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12040421

[18] Hardy S, Jackson B, Goodbourn S, Seago J. Classical Swine Fever Virus Npro Antagonizes IRF3 To Prevent Interferon-Independent TLR3- and RIG-I-Mediated Apoptosis. Journal of Virology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01136-20

[19] Casciari C, Sozzi E, Bazzucchi M, Martin AMM, Gaffuri A, Giammarioli M, et al.. Serological relationship between a novel ovine pestivirus and classical swine fever virus.. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13480

[20] Luo Y, Ji S, Liu Y, Lei J, Xia S, Wang Y, et al.. Isolation and Characterization of a Moderately Virulent Classical Swine Fever Virus Emerging in China. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12581

[21] Pestova T, Shatsky I, Fletcher SP, Jackson R, Hellen C. A prokaryotic-like mode of cytoplasmic eukaryotic ribosome binding to the initiation codon during internal translation initiation of hepatitis C and classical swine fever virus RNAs.. Genes & Development. 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/GAD.12.1.67

[22] Ma S, Mao Q, Yi L, Zhao M, Chen J. Apoptosis, Autophagy, and Pyroptosis: Immune Escape Strategies for Persistent Infection and Pathogenesis of Classical Swine Fever Virus. Pathogens. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040239

[23] Malik Y, Bhat S, Kumar ORV, Yadav A, Sircar S, Ansari MI, et al.. Classical Swine Fever Virus Biology, Clinicopathology, Diagnosis, Vaccines and a Meta-Analysis of Prevalence: A Review from the Indian Perspective. Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9060500

[24] Izzati UZ, Hoa N, Lan N, Diep NV, Fuke N, Hirai T, et al.. Pathology of the outbreak of subgenotype 2.5 classical swine fever virus in northern Vietnam. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.339

[25] Yu S, Yin C, Song K, Li S, Zheng G, Li L, et al.. Engagement of cellular cholesterol in the life cycle of classical swine fever virus: its potential as an antiviral target.. Journal of General Virology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001178

[26] Jelsma T, Wijnker J, Smid B, Verheij E, Poel WVDvd, Wisselink H. Salt inactivation of classical swine fever virus and African swine fever virus in porcine intestines confirms the existing in vitro casings model.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108424

[27] Borca M, Holinka L, Ramírez-Medina E, Risatti G, Vuono E, Vuono E, et al.. Identification of structural glycoprotein E2 domain critical to mediate replication of Classical Swine Fever Virus in SK6 cells.. Virology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2018.10.004

[28] Brown V, Bevins S. A Review of Classical Swine Fever Virus and Routes of Introduction into the United States and the Potential for Virus Establishment. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00031

[29] Choe S, Le V, Shin J, Kim J, Kim K, Song S, et al.. Pathogenicity and Genetic Characterization of Vietnamese Classical Swine Fever Virus: 2014–2018. Pathogens. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens9030169

[30] Gong W, Li J, Wang Z, Sun J, Mi S, Xu J, et al.. Commercial E2 subunit vaccine provides full protection to pigs against lethal challenge with 4 strains of classical swine fever virus genotype 2.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.108403

[31] Yoo S, Kwon T, Kang K, Kim H, Kang S, Richt JA, et al.. Genetic evolution of classical swine fever virus under immune environments conditioned by genotype 1‐based modified live virus vaccine. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12798

[32] Gong W, Li J, Wang Z, Sun J, Mi S, Lu Z, et al.. Virulence evaluation of classical swine fever virus subgenotype 2.1 and 2.2 isolates circulating in China.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VETMIC.2019.04.001

[33] Xing C, Lu Z, Jiang J, Huang L, Xu J, He D, et al.. Sub-subgenotype 2.1c isolates of classical swine fever virus are dominant in Guangdong province of China, 2018.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.12.029

[34] Li W, Wu B, Soca WA, An L. Crystal Structure of Classical Swine Fever Virus NS5B Reveals a Novel N-Terminal Domain. Journal of Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00324-18

[35] Li S, Wang J, Yang Q, Anwar MN, Yu S, Qiu H. Complex Virus–Host Interactions Involved in the Regulation of Classical Swine Fever Virus Replication: A Minireview. Viruses. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v9070171

[36] Gladue D, Largo E, Holinka L, Ramírez-Medina E, Vuono E, Berggren K, et al.. Classical Swine Fever Virus p7 Protein Interacts with Host Protein CAMLG and Regulates Calcium Permeability at the Endoplasmic Reticulum. Viruses. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v10090460

[37] Li L, Yu J, Li Y, Wang J, Li S, Zhang L, et al.. Guanylate-Binding Protein 1, an Interferon-Induced GTPase, Exerts an Antiviral Activity against Classical Swine Fever Virus Depending on Its GTPase Activity. Journal of Virology. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02718-15

[38] Guo X, Sang S, Guo J, Jian A, Duan Q, Ji J, et al.. A magnetoelastic biosensor based on E2 glycoprotein for wireless detection of classical swine fever virus E2 antibody. Scientific Reports. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15908-2

[39] Chen Y, Li X, Chi X, Wang S, Ma Y, Chen J. Comprehensive analysis of the codon usage patterns in the envelope glycoprotein E2 gene of the classical swine fever virus. PLoS ONE. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183646

[40] Li X, Huang Y, Liu X, Zhang L, Wang X, Zhao F, et al.. Classical swine fever virus inhibits serine metabolism-mediated antiviral immunity by deacetylating modified PHGDH. mBio. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.02097-24

[41] Liu C, Liu Y, Zhou J, Chen X, Chen H, Hu J, et al.. Cellular ESCRT components are recruited to regulate the endocytic trafficking and RNA replication compartment assembly during classical swine fever virus infection. PLoS Pathogens. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010294

[42] Wang T, Zhang L, Liang W, Liu S, Deng W, Liu Y, et al.. Extracellular vesicles originating from autophagy mediate an antibody-resistant spread of classical swine fever virus in cell culture. Autophagy. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15548627.2021.1987673

[43] Gao Y, Hu J, Liang X, Chen J, Liu C, Liu Y, et al.. Curcumin inhibits classical swine fever virus replication by interfering with lipid metabolism.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2021.109152

[44] Liu C, Liu Y, Cheng Y, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Liang X, et al.. The ESCRT-I Subunit Tsg101 Plays Novel Dual Roles in Entry and Replication of Classical Swine Fever Virus. Journal of Virology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01928-20

[45] Zhu E, Wu H, Chen W, Qin Y, Liu J, Fan S, et al.. Classical swine fever virus employs the PERK- and IRE1-dependent autophagy for viral replication in cultured cells.. Virulence. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2020.1845040

[46] Zhang L, Zhao D, Jin M, Song M, Liu S, Guo K, et al.. Rab18 binds to classical swine fever virus NS5A and mediates viral replication and assembly in swine umbilical vein endothelial cells. Virulence. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2020.1767356

[47] Cabezón Ó, Muñoz-González S, Colom-Cadena A, Pérez-Simó M, Rosell R, Lavín S, et al.. African swine fever virus infection in Classical swine fever subclinically infected wild boars. BMC Veterinary Research. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1150-0

[48] Fan S, Yuan J, Deng S, Chen Y, Xie B, Wu K, et al.. Activation of Interleukin-1β Release by the Classical Swine Fever Virus Is Dependent on the NLRP3 Inflammasome, Which Affects Virus Growth in Monocytes. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2018.00225

[49] Goraya MU, Ziaghum F, Chen S, Raza A, Chen Y, Chi X. Role of innate immunity in pathophysiology of classical swine fever virus infection.. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2018.04.020

[50] Li W, Mao L, Cao Y, Zhou B, Yang L, Han L, et al.. Porcine Viperin protein inhibits the replication of classical swine fever virus (CSFV) in vitro. Virology Journal. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-017-0868-4

[51] Cabezón Ó, Colom-Cadena A, Muñoz-González S, Pérez-Simó M, Bohórquez JA, Rosell R, et al.. Post‐Natal Persistent Infection With Classical Swine Fever Virus in Wild Boar: A Strategy for Viral Maintenance?. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12395

[52] Coronado L, Perera C, Rios L, Frías M, Pérez L. A Critical Review about Different Vaccines against Classical Swine Fever Virus and Their Repercussions in Endemic Regions. Vaccines. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020154

[53] Liu H, Shi K, Zhao J, Yin Y, Chen Y, Si H, et al.. Development of a one-step multiplex qRT–PCR assay for the detection of African swine fever virus, classical swine fever virus and atypical porcine pestivirus. BMC Veterinary Research. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03144-4

[54] Chen N, Huang Y, Ye M, Li S, Xiao Y, Cui B, et al.. Co-infection status of classical swine fever virus (CSFV), porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and porcine circoviruses (PCV2 and PCV3) in eight regions of China from 2016 to 2018.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.12.011

[55] Mi S, Guo S, Xing C, Xiao C, He B, Wu B, et al.. Isolation and Characterization of Porcine Astrovirus 5 from a Classical Swine Fever Virus-Infected Specimen. Journal of Virology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01513-20

[56] Nishi T, Kameyama K, Kato T, Fukai K. Genome Sequence of a Classical Swine Fever Virus of Subgenotype 2.1, Isolated from a Pig in Japan in 2018. Microbiology Resource Announcements. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/MRA.01362-18

[57] Chen D, Liu X, Xu S, Chen D, Zhou L, Ge X, et al.. TNF-α induced by porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus inhibits the replication of classical swine fever virus C-strain.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VETMIC.2019.05.007

[58] Kameyama K, Nishi T, Yamada M, Masujin K, Morioka K, Kokuho T, et al.. Experimental infection of pigs with a classical swine fever virus isolated in Japan for the first time in 26 years. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.19-0133

[59] Shi K, Chen Y, Yin Y, Long F, Feng S, Liu H, et al.. A Multiplex Crystal Digital PCR for Detection of African Swine Fever Virus, Classical Swine Fever Virus, and Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.926881

[60] Chen Y, Shi K, Liu H, Yin Y, Zhao J, Long F, et al.. Development of a multiplex qRT-PCR assay for detection of African swine fever virus, classical swine fever virus and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2021.22.e87

[61] Wang J, Sun Y, Meng X, Li L, Li Y, Luo Y, et al.. Comprehensive evaluation of the host responses to infection with differentially virulent classical swine fever virus strains in pigs.. Virus Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2018.06.012

[62] Klangprapan S, Choke-arpornchai B, Lieberzeit P, Choowongkomon K. Sensing the classical swine fever virus with molecularly imprinted polymer on quartz crystal microbalance. Heliyon. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04137

[63] Aira C, Ruiz T, Dixon L, Blome S, Rueda P, Sastre P. Bead-Based Multiplex Assay for the Simultaneous Detection of Antibodies to African Swine Fever Virus and Classical Swine Fever Virus. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00306

[64] Sordo-Puga Y, Suárez-Pedroso M, Naranjo-Valdéz P, Pérez-Pérez D, Santana-Rodríguez E, Sardinas-Gonzalez T, et al.. Porvac® Subunit Vaccine E2-CD154 Induces Remarkable Rapid Protection against Classical Swine Fever Virus. Vaccines. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020167

[65] Wei Q, Liu Y, Zhang G. Research Progress and Challenges in Vaccine Development against Classical Swine Fever Virus. Viruses. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13030445

[66] Fan J, Liao Y, Zhang M, Liu C, Li Z, Li Y, et al.. Anti-Classical Swine Fever Virus Strategies. Microorganisms. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040761

[67] Tong W, Zheng H, Li G, Gao F, Shan T, Zhou Y, et al.. Recombinant pseudorabies virus expressing E2 of classical swine fever virus (CSFV) protects against both virulent pseudorabies virus and CSFV.. Antiviral Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2019.104652

[68] Park Y, An D, Choe S, Lee Y, Park M, Park S, et al.. Development of Recombinant Protein-Based Vaccine Against Classical Swine Fever Virus in Pigs Using Transgenic Nicotiana benthamiana. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00624

[69] Park Y, Lee S, Kang H, Park M, Min K, Kim N, et al.. A classical swine fever virus E2 fusion protein produced in plants elicits a neutralizing humoral immune response in mice and pigs. Biotechnology Letters. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-020-02892-3

[70] Gou H, Zhao M, Yuan J, Xu H, Ding H, Chen J. Metabolic Profiles in Cell Lines Infected with Classical Swine Fever Virus. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00691