Senecavirus A

Overview and Taxonomy of Senecavirus A

Senecavirus A (SVA), historically referred to as Seneca Valley virus (SVV), represents a singular and enigmatic member of the Picornaviridae family, occupying its own distinct genus, Senecavirus [3, 4, 17]. The virus was first identified in 2002 as a serendipitous contaminant during the passage of a modified adenovirus vector in PER.C6 cells, a finding that initially obscured its true pathogenic potential [23, 26]. For over a decade, SVA was considered an orphan virus with no clear disease association. However, a dramatic shift in its epidemiological profile occurred around 2014–2015, when severe outbreaks of vesicular disease in swine were reported across major pig-producing nations, including the United States, Brazil, China, and Canada, thrusting SVA into the spotlight as an emerging pathogen of significant economic consequence [3, 6, 25]. The virus is now recognized as the primary etiological agent of porcine idiopathic vesicular disease (PIVD), a condition whose clinical presentation is clinically indistinguishable from several high-consequence foreign animal diseases (FADs), most notably foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), swine vesicular disease (SVD), and vesicular stomatitis (VS) [1, 2, 10]. This profound clinical mimicry has placed SVA at the center of a diagnostic conundrum, triggering mandatory FAD investigations in countries free of FMD, such as the United States and Canada, thereby placing a substantial burden on veterinary diagnostic infrastructure and regulatory resources [3, 9, 22].

Taxonomic Classification and Genomic Architecture

Taxonomically, SVA is the sole species within the genus Senecavirus, which belongs to the family Picornaviridae [4, 15, 17]. This family encompasses a vast array of small, non-enveloped, positive-sense, single-stranded RNA viruses, many of which are of major medical and veterinary importance, including poliovirus, foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), and hepatitis A virus. The classification of SVA into its own genus is supported by distinct phylogenetic divergence and unique genomic features that set it apart from other picornaviruses [25]. The viral genome is approximately 7.2–7.3 kilobases (kb) in length, lacking a 5' cap structure but possessing a virus-encoded protein (VPg) covalently linked to the 5' end, and a polyadenylated (polyA) tail at the 3' end [12, 16, 20]. The genome is organized into a single, large open reading frame (ORF) flanked by highly structured 5' and 3' untranslated regions (UTRs) that are critical for viral replication and translation [15, 21].

The ORF encodes a single polyprotein of approximately 2,182 amino acids, which is co- and post-translationally processed by viral proteases into 12 mature proteins: four structural proteins (VP4, VP2, VP3, VP1) and eight non-structural proteins (L, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D) [17, 24]. The structural proteins assemble into an icosahedral capsid, with VP1, VP2, and VP3 forming the outer surface of the virion, while VP4 is located internally, lining the inner capsid surface and playing a crucial role in genome release during entry [8, 17]. The non-structural proteins orchestrate the viral replication complex, modulate host cellular environments, and counteract innate immune defenses. Notably, the 3C protease (3Cpro) is a multifunctional enzyme responsible for the majority of polyprotein cleavage events and for antagonizing host antiviral signaling by degrading key factors such as STAT1 and STAT2 [7, 11]. The 3D protein functions as the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), the core enzyme for genome replication [5, 14, 24].

Phylogenetic Diversity and Global Evolution

Phylogenetic analyses of SVA isolates from around the world have revealed a dynamic evolutionary landscape characterized by continuous genetic drift and, importantly, recombination. Comprehensive Bayesian phylodynamic studies estimate that the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) of contemporary SVA strains emerged around 1986, long before its initial discovery [25]. The virus exhibits a relatively high substitution rate of approximately 3.35 × 10⁻³ nucleotide substitutions per site per year, a rate consistent with other rapidly evolving RNA viruses [25]. This high mutation rate, coupled with a recombination-prone replication cycle, drives the emergence of novel genetic variants.

Globally, SVA isolates can be broadly divided into two major phylogenetic clades: clade I, which includes the older, pre-2007 prototype strains (e.g., SVV-001), and clade II, which encompasses the vast majority of post-2007 field isolates responsible for the recent epizootics [19, 25]. Within clade II, further sub-clades have been identified, reflecting regional diversification and independent introductions. For instance, Chinese isolates from 2019 have been shown to cluster into distinct clades (e.g., Clade I and Clade VII), indicating co-circulation of multiple lineages within a single country [19]. Recombination events are a significant driver of SVA evolution, with evidence of inter- and intra-clade recombination in the ORF region, particularly involving structural protein genes (e.g., VP2/VP3) and non-structural protein genes [3, 15, 26]. A notable recombination event was identified in a Chinese isolate (SVA-CH-SDFX-2022), where a recombination breakpoint was mapped between nucleotides 1836 and 2710, encompassing partial sequences of both VP2 and VP3 [26]. Similarly, phylogeographic analyses of Canadian isolates have inferred multiple cross-border transmission events between Canada and the United States, as well as long-distance spread from North America to Asia and South America, underscoring the virus's capacity for rapid international dissemination [3, 25].

Host Range and Cross-Species Transmission

The primary host for SVA is the domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus), in which it causes acute vesicular disease and neonatal mortality [1, 4, 9]. However, the host range of SVA is not strictly limited to swine. Experimental and field evidence has demonstrated that SVA can infect other species, raising concerns about cross-species transmission and the establishment of alternative reservoirs. A landmark study isolated an SVA strain (SVA/GD/China/2018) from a buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) presenting with mouth ulcers [4]. Subsequent experimental inoculation of this buffalo-origin strain into both piglets and buffaloes confirmed its pathogenicity in both species, inducing characteristic vesicular lesions and detectable viremia [4]. This finding provides direct evidence of SVA's ability to cross the species barrier between pigs and bovids, suggesting that cattle and buffalo could serve as potential reservoirs or spillover hosts. The implications for SVA epidemiology and control are profound, as the presence of asymptomatic or mildly affected cattle herds could complicate eradication efforts and maintain viral circulation in mixed farming systems. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes the importance of monitoring SVA in the context of differential diagnosis for FMD, and these findings underscore the need for expanded surveillance beyond swine populations.

Ecological and Epidemiological Context

SVA is now considered endemic in several major swine-producing regions, including North America, South America, and Asia [6, 18, 22]. A comprehensive global meta-analysis of studies from 2014 to 2020 estimated a pooled SVA prevalence of 15.90% in pigs, with the highest rates observed in piglet herds (71.69%) [18]. In the United States, a large-scale serosurvey of breeding and growing pig farms estimated a farm-level seroprevalence of 17.3% and 7.4%, respectively, with breeding farms having 2.64 times higher odds of seropositivity [22]. The virus exhibits a distinct seasonal pattern, with outbreaks more frequently reported in the second half of the year, particularly in temperate regions like the U.S. Midwest [9]. Transmission occurs primarily via the fecal-oral and nasal routes, and the virus can persist in the environment, facilitating rapid spread within and between herds [13]. Importantly, vertical transmission has been documented, with infectious SVA detected in colostrum and milk from sows, and high viral loads found in piglets within 24 hours of birth, even in the presence of neutralizing antibodies [13]. This ability to evade maternal immunity and establish congenital infection represents a major challenge for disease control and highlights the need for effective vaccination strategies to protect both sows and their offspring.

Molecular Virology and Genomic Organization

Genome Architecture and Phylogenetic Context

Senecavirus A (SVA), the sole member of the genus Senecavirus within the family Picornaviridae, possesses a positive-sense, single-stranded RNA genome of approximately 7,200–7,300 nucleotides (nt) in length [12, 15, 16]. The genomic organization follows the canonical picornavirus blueprint, comprising a single open reading frame (ORF) of 6,546 nt encoding a polyprotein of 2,182 amino acids, flanked by a 5′ untranslated region (UTR) and a 3′ UTR terminating in a poly(A) tail [15, 17, 20]. The 5′ end lacks a cap structure but is instead covalently linked to the viral protein VPg (3B), a hallmark of picornaviruses that primes RNA synthesis [17, 43]. The 3′ poly(A) tail is essential for viral replication, with studies demonstrating that a minimum of 14 adenine residues is sufficient for rescue of infectious virus from cDNA clones but inadequate for robust replication kinetics, indicating that longer poly(A) tracts are required to meet replicative demands [20]. This genomic configuration positions SVA as a archetypal picornavirus while harboring unique features that underpin its pathogenesis and oncolytic potential.

The complete genome sequence of SVA strain SVA-CH-AHAU-1, isolated from Anhui Province, China, is 7,286 nt in length with a 5′ UTR of 656 nt, an ORF of 6,546 nt, and a 3′ UTR of 72 nt [15]. Comparative genomics reveals that SVA shares 97.9% nucleotide identity with the US isolate US-15-41901SD, highlighting the close genetic relationship among globally circulating strains [15]. Importantly, recombination events are frequently observed in SVA genomes, occurring within the ORF region between isolates from different geographical origins, including Canada, the United States, and China [3, 15]. A notable recombination event was identified in a northern Chinese isolate, SVA-CH-SDFX-2022, spanning nucleotides 1,836 to 2,710 within the VP2 (partial) and VP3 (partial) genes, underscoring the role of recombination in driving genetic diversity and potentially altering antigenic profiles [26]. Phylogeographic analyses infer that SVA has spread between the United States and Canada multiple times and from Canada into Thailand, India, and Mexico, while US strains have seeded outbreaks in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and China through at least ten independent introductions [3]. Bayesian phylodynamic reconstruction estimates the time to the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) of SVA at approximately 1986, with a substitution rate of 3.3522 × 10⁻³ nucleotide substitutions/site/year, indicative of rapid evolution characteristic of RNA viruses [25]. Notably, Brazil has been identified as the likely source of SVA’s global transmission since 2015, with the virus diverging into two main clades: clade I (pre-2007 strains) and clade II (post-2007 strains) [25]. Positive selection analysis has identified 27 positively selected sites, predominantly located on the outer surface of capsid protomers or within functional domains of nonstructural proteins, suggesting ongoing adaptation to host immune pressures [25].

Untranslated Regions and Cis-Acting Elements

The 5′ UTR of SVA contains an internal ribosome entry site (IRES) that directs cap-independent translation initiation, a critical strategy for picornaviruses to hijack the host translation machinery while host cap-dependent translation is suppressed [17, 37]. The 5′ UTR also harbors structural elements essential for RNA replication, including cloverleaf-like structures that interact with viral and host proteins to coordinate replication complex assembly [17]. The 3′ UTR of SVA is predicted to form two hairpin structures, designated hairpin-I and hairpin-II, which are crucial for viral RNA replication [21]. Hairpin-I comprises two internal loops, one terminal loop, and three stem regions, while hairpin-II consists of one internal loop, one terminal loop, and two stem regions [21]. Mutagenesis studies have demonstrated that a wild-type or wild-type-like hairpin-I is mandatory for virus viability; point mutations disrupting the stem structure abrogate replication, whereas mutants that preserve the wild-type or a compensatory wild-type-like hairpin-I remain replication-competent and genetically stable over serial passages [21]. This strict structural requirement highlights the functional importance of the 3′ UTR in mediating RNA-RNA and RNA-protein interactions during negative-strand synthesis.

A critical cis-acting replication element (cre) has been identified within the VP2-encoding region of the SVA genome [43]. The cre forms a stem-loop structure harboring a conserved AAACA motif within its loop, which serves as the template for the uridylylation of VPg (3B) by the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (3Dpol) [43]. This uridylylation generates VPg-pUpU, the primer required for both positive- and negative-strand RNA synthesis [43]. Through systematic mutagenesis, the wild-type motif was confirmed as A₁A₂A₃C₄A₅, and the cre was shown to tolerate only specific mutations (A₅C and A₅U), whereas other substitutions were lethal [46]. Artificially inserting a functional cre into replication-defective cDNA clones could rescue virus viability, confirming the essential role of this element in SVA replication [43, 46]. The identification of the cre provides a molecular target for antiviral strategies aimed at disrupting VPg uridylylation and RNA replication.

Structural Proteins: Capsid Architecture and Antigenic Determinants

The viral capsid of SVA is composed of 60 copies each of four structural proteins, VP1, VP2, VP3, and VP4, arranged in an icosahedral lattice typical of picornaviruses [17]. VP1, VP2, and VP3 form the external surface of the capsid, while VP4 is located on the inner surface, lining the RNA core [8, 17]. VP4 undergoes myristoylation at its N-terminal glycine residue, a post-translational modification catalyzed by N-myristoyltransferase 1 (NMT1) that is essential for viral replication [38]. The myristoyl moiety facilitates membrane association during viral entry and uncoating, and substitution of the N-terminal glycine abrogates virus viability [38]. The threonine residue at position five of VP4 facilitates substrate binding to NMT1, and its mutation impairs replication, highlighting the specific sequence requirements for myristoylation [38].

VP1 is the most immunogenic structural protein, eliciting robust neutralizing antibody responses in infected animals [17, 28, 39]. Immunodominant regions of VP1 have been mapped using overlapping peptide libraries and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), revealing that peptides spanning amino acids 1–20 exhibit high reactivity with polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies, while blocking ELISA identified critical epitope clusters at residues 165–185 and 225–245 that inhibit antibody binding by ≥50% [39]. Phage display technology has been employed to precisely map conformational epitopes on VP1 recognized by neutralizing mAbs [32]. Seven distinct antigenic epitopes were identified, including motifs such as SHHLGPAPHFLA (recognized by mAb 6D26) and HGAVRTGTWLAQ (recognized by mAb 6D22), with critical residues at H162, G165, P168, F171, A172, G176, and W184 [32]. These conformational epitopes are located on the outer surface of the capsid and are targets of neutralizing antibodies, providing valuable insights for vaccine design. Importantly, the E3 ubiquitin ligase STUB1 interacts with VP1 and mediates its ubiquitination-dependent degradation at lysine residues K177 and K260, thereby restricting viral replication [31]. The SVA 3C protease counteracts this host defense by cleaving STUB1, underscoring the molecular arms race between virus and host [31].

VP2 is a multifunctional structural protein that plays a central role in receptor binding, viral entry, and induction of neutralizing antibodies [2, 27, 33, 35, 41, 42]. Several linear B-cell epitopes have been identified on VP2, including 156-NEEQWV-161 located in the flex-loop region and 262-VRPTSPYFN-270 situated in a β-sheet [2]. The epitope 151-SLQELN-156 was shown to be a linear neutralizing epitope, with residues Ser151, Leu152, Leu155, and Asn156 being critical for antibody binding [27]. Another study identified the epitope 177-SLGTYYR-183, located in the “puff” region of the VP2 EF loop, which contains three key residues involved in receptor binding; mutation Y182A blocked recognition by neutralizing mAb 1B8, confirming its functional importance [35]. A comprehensive epitope mapping study using Pepscan and bioinformatics identified four immunodominant epitopes (IDEs): IDE1 (41-TKSDPPSSSTDQPTTT-56), IDE2 (145-PDGKAKSLQELNEEQW-160), IDE3 (161-VEMSDDYRTGKNMPF-175), and IDE4 (267-PYFNGLRNRFTTGT-280) [42]. IDE2 was further validated as a novel neutralizing linear epitope, as guinea pig antisera raised against this peptide neutralized SVA infection in vitro [42]. These epitopes are highly conserved among global SVA strains, making VP2 an attractive target for epitope-based vaccines and diagnostic assays [2, 33, 35, 42]. A double-antigen sandwich ELISA based on recombinant VP2 expressed in E. coli demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for detecting SVA antibodies, with no cross-reactivity to other porcine pathogens [33]. Additionally, VP2 has been used to develop a colloidal gold lateral flow strip assay for rapid detection of SVA antigen, with a detection limit of 0.5 ng/mL and 90% concordance with RT-PCR [30].

VP3, though less characterized than VP1 and VP2, plays essential roles in viral translation and immune evasion. VP3 binds to and relocalizes heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2B1 (hnRNPA2B1), a host RNA-binding protein that functions as an IRES trans-acting factor (ITAF) [37]. This interaction selectively promotes viral IRES-driven translation while globally suppressing host cap-dependent translation, a dual strategy that enhances viral protein synthesis and attenuates the type I interferon (IFN) response [37]. The VP3-mediated translation shutdown is critical for immune evasion, and the VP3-hnRNPA2B1 complex represents a potential target for antiviral or oncolytic reagent development [37]. VP3 has also been co-expressed in recombinant pseudorabies virus (PRV) vectors for bivalent vaccine development, inducing strong cellular and humoral immune responses against both SVA and PRV in mice [36].

VP4, the smallest capsid protein, is located on the inner surface of the virion and plays a crucial role in viral entry and uncoating [8]. Despite its internal localization, VP4 contains antigenic epitopes exposed during infection. A monoclonal antibody (mAb 4E4) raised against recombinant VP4 recognized a linear B-cell epitope, 7-SKDNFD-12, which is surface-exposed and highly conserved among SVA strains [8]. Importantly, mAb 4E4 exhibited neutralizing activity against SVA, indicating that VP4 epitopes can be targeted by neutralizing antibodies, potentially through transient exposure during cell entry [8]. This finding challenges the conventional view that only external capsid proteins elicit neutralizing responses and opens new avenues for vaccine design.

Nonstructural Proteins: Replication Machinery and Host Antagonism

The SVA polyprotein is proteolytically processed by the viral 3C protease (3Cpro) into 12 mature proteins: L, VP4, VP2, VP3, VP1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D [7, 17]. The nonstructural proteins orchestrate viral RNA replication, modulate host cell environments, and counteract innate immune responses through diverse molecular mechanisms.

Leader Protein (L): The L protein is a small, multifunctional protein at the N-terminus of the polyprotein. It is stabilized by heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70), which enhances viral replication by preventing L protein degradation [14]. The L protein also contributes to inhibition of host transcription and modulation of signaling pathways, though its precise functions in SVA remain less defined compared to other picornaviruses [17].

2A, 2B, and 2C Proteins: The 2A protein mediates the primary cleavage between 2A and 2B, a conserved feature among picornaviruses that involves a “ribosome skipping” mechanism rather than proteolytic cleavage [17]. The 2B protein, along with 2C, has been implicated in antagonizing host antiviral responses. SVA 2B and 3C collaborate to degrade the host DEAD-box RNA helicase DDX21, a protein that inhibits viral replication, through a caspase-dependent pathway [45]. 2B also interacts with 2AB to selectively degrade LC3 and MARCHF8, thereby antagonizing selective autophagy and type I IFN production [44]. The 2AB protein co-opts MARCHF8 and MAVS into a large complex for degradation, effectively deactivating IFN-I signaling and promoting viral replication [44].

The 2C protein is a multifunctional virulence factor with ATPase, helicase, and membrane-binding activities [17, 29, 40]. It plays a central role in inducing mitophagy to promote SVA replication. SVA infection triggers complete mitophagy, and among the viral proteins, 2C is the primary inducer [40]. 2C directly interacts with mitochondrial Tu translation elongation factor (TUFM) at residues E196 and E211, which then recruits BECN1 and the ATG12–ATG5 conjugate [40]. For mitophagy to proceed, TUFM must undergo K27-linked polyubiquitination catalyzed by the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF185, which interacts with TUFM through its transmembrane domain 1 [40]. Ubiquitinated TUFM is recognized by SQSTM1/p62, which links the mitochondria to phagophores via MAP1LC3, leading to mitophagosome formation and lysosomal fusion [40]. This process removes damaged mitochondria that would otherwise trigger apoptosis or inflammatory signaling, thereby creating a favorable environment for viral replication. Additionally, 2C interacts with the interferon-induced host protein RSAD2, which suppresses viral replication by binding to amino acids 43–70 of RSAD2 [34]. RSAD2 is induced by type I IFN through the JAK-STAT pathway, and its antiviral activity is blocked by the JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, highlighting the importance of 2C-RSAD2 interactions in the host-virus arms race [34]. Two linear B-cell epitopes on 2C have been mapped: DGYKGQF at amino acids 162–168 and LQAWIN

Molecular Pathogenesis and Immune Evasion Mechanisms

Senecavirus A (SVA), the sole member of the genus Senecavirus within the Picornaviridae family, has emerged as a significant pathogen of swine, causing a vesicular disease clinically indistinguishable from foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and other foreign animal diseases [1, 3]. The virus is endemic in numerous swine-producing nations, including the United States, Brazil, China, Canada, and Thailand, and its presence triggers costly foreign animal disease investigations due to its phenotypic similarity to FMD, a disease notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) [3, 9, 10]. The molecular pathogenesis of SVA is a multifaceted process orchestrated by a sophisticated arsenal of viral proteins that manipulate host cellular machinery to promote replication while systematically dismantling the host's antiviral defenses. This intricate interplay involves the subversion of innate immune signaling, the manipulation of cellular stress responses and metabolic pathways, and the targeted degradation of key antiviral factors.

Subversion of the Interferon System: A Multi-Pronged Assault

A cornerstone of SVA's pathogenic strategy is the potent and multi-layered antagonism of the type I interferon (IFN) system, a critical component of the host's innate antiviral response. The SVA genome encodes several nonstructural proteins that function as dedicated IFN antagonists, acting at distinct points within the signaling cascade. The 3C protease (3Cpro) serves as a master antagonist, directly targeting the Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) signaling pathway. Mechanistically, 3Cpro utilizes its chymotrypsin-like protease activity to selectively cleave the signal transducers and activators of transcription 1 and 2 (STAT1 and STAT2), thereby blocking the transduction of IFN signals and preventing the expression of hundreds of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) [7, 11]. The cleavage of STAT1 occurs at a specific Leucine-Aspartic acid (LD) motif (L693/D694), while STAT2 is cleaved at distinct sites, including Q707 in both human and porcine species and a second site (V754-L757-Q-S motifs in human; Q758 in porcine), highlighting the unique substrate recognition patterns of SVA 3Cpro compared to other picornaviral proteases [11].

Beyond direct cleavage of signaling molecules, SVA employs multiple mechanisms to suppress IFN induction. The nonstructural protein 2AB has been shown to antagonize the production of type I IFN by degrading the mitochondrial antiviral signaling protein (MAVS) and the E3 ubiquitin ligase MARCHF8, which is a positive regulator of IFN signaling [44]. This degradation occurs through the induction of selective autophagy, effectively short-circuiting the retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I)-like receptor (RLR) pathway at its central adaptor [44]. Furthermore, the 3A protein acts as a viral suppressor of RNA interference (VSR), a conserved antiviral pathway in eukaryotes. SVA 3A achieves this by directly inhibiting the RNAi pathway through the autophagic degradation of Argonaute 2 (Ago2), the core effector protein of RNAi [48]. This represents a novel mechanism by which a picornavirus can evade this ancient form of host immunity.

The exploitation of host metabolic pathways also contributes to IFN evasion. SVA infection potently induces aerobic glycolysis (the Warburg effect) in a dose- and replication-dependent manner, leading to increased lactate production [50]. This metabolic shift is not merely a consequence of infection but is a deliberate viral strategy. Elevated lactate attenuates the interaction between MAVS and RIG-I, thereby dampening RLR signaling and the subsequent production of IFN-β and ISGs [50]. This elegant coupling of metabolic reprogramming with immune evasion underscores the complexity of SVA pathogenesis. Additionally, SVA enlists host proteins to further suppress the IFN axis; for instance, the host factor SERPINB1 is co-opted to degrade IκB kinase epsilon (IKBKE) via the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway, which in turn activates autophagy and suppresses type I IFN signaling, thereby promoting viral replication [51]. Similarly, the host protein SOCS1 (suppressor of cytokine signaling 1) is upregulated upon SVA infection and plays a pro-viral role by inhibiting the NF-κB signaling pathway, attenuating the production of IFNs and pro-inflammatory cytokines [52].

Manipulation of Cell Death, Stress Granules, and Autophagy

SVA exerts precise control over host cell fate decisions to optimize its replication. The virus induces a complete form of mitophagy, a selective autophagy of mitochondria, which is dependent on viral replication [40]. This process is critically mediated by the nonstructural protein 2C, which directly interacts with the mitochondrial translation elongation factor TUFM. For this interaction to lead to mitophagy, TUFM must first undergo K27-linked polyubiquitination catalyzed by the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF185 [40]. The ubiquitinated TUFM is then recognized by the autophagy receptor SQSTM1/p62, which links the 2C-anchored mitochondria to the phagophore, ultimately leading to mitophagic degradation. This removal of mitochondria is a pro-viral strategy, as it likely prevents the activation of MAVS-dependent antiviral signaling and may also alter cellular metabolism to favor viral replication [40]. Interestingly, SVA infection also induces the formation of stress granules (SGs) in the early stages of infection, as observed in porcine intestinal organoids. These SGs, however, are transient and decline over time, suggesting that SVA actively disassembles them to subvert the host's stress response and promote viral translation [47].

The autophagy pathway itself is a battleground during SVA infection. The virus induces a complete autophagic flux early in infection; however, this process is antiviral, as rapamycin-induced autophagy degrades the viral 3C protein and inhibits replication [44]. To counteract this, the SVA 2AB protein acts as a potent antagonist of autophagy at later stages of infection by interacting with LC3 and the E3 ligase MARCHF8, leading to their degradation and the subsequent blockage of the autophagic pathway [44]. This temporal regulation of autophagy, early induction to perhaps provide membranous scaffolds for replication, followed by late-stage inhibition to prevent the degradation of viral components, illustrates the intricate control SVA exerts over this cellular process.

Antagonism of Host Restriction Factors and Inflammasome Activation

SVA has evolved sophisticated mechanisms to neutralize a wide array of host restriction factors. The E3 ubiquitin ligase STUB1 restricts SVA replication by interacting with the VP1 capsid protein and promoting its ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation at specific lysine residues (K177 and K260) [31]. This antiviral activity is enhanced by the chaperones HSP70 and HSC70. In a classic countermeasure, SVA encodes the 3Cpro, which cleaves and downregulates STUB1 expression, thereby blocking the degradation of VP1 and allowing viral propagation [31]. The zinc-finger antiviral protein (ZAP) provides another layer of host defense. The short isoform (ZAP-S) inhibits SVA by activating the RIG-I signaling pathway, while the long isoform (ZAP-L) directly targets the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, 3Dpol [5]. RSAD2 (viperin) also suppresses SVA replication by interacting with the 2C protein, and this interaction requires the N-terminal amino acids 43-70 of RSAD2 [34]. Other ISGs like IFITM1 and IFITM2 inhibit SVA replication through a positive feedback loop with the RIG-I signaling pathway [49], while IFIT3 has been shown to target multiple stages of the SVA life cycle, including virus entry, assembly, and release [53]. The DEAD-box RNA helicase DDX21 is another antiviral factor that is downregulated during SVA infection; the virus achieves this through a unique mechanism involving the 2B and 3C proteins, which induce the caspase-dependent degradation of DDX21 without directly interacting with it [45].

While SVA extensively suppresses antiviral signaling, it also activates the NLRP3 inflammasome to induce IL-1β production, contributing to the inflammatory pathology observed in infected animals. This activation is mediated by the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, 3D. The N-terminal 1-154 amino acids of 3D bind directly to the NACHT domain of NLRP3, leading to inflammasome assembly [24]. Furthermore, 3D interacts with IKKα and IKKβ to activate NF-κB signaling, which primes the production of pro-IL-1β, and it induces potassium efflux and calcium influx, providing the second signal required for inflammasome activation and IL-1β secretion [24]. This dual role of 3D in both viral replication and inflammasome activation highlights the fine line SVA walks between immune evasion and pathological inflammation.

Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics

Senecavirus A (SVA) has emerged as a globally significant pathogen of swine, presenting a complex epidemiological picture characterized by rapid international spread, sustained endemic circulation, and a multifaceted transmission profile that includes horizontal, vertical, and potential cross-species pathways. Understanding the intricate dynamics of SVA transmission is paramount for the design of effective control strategies, particularly given the clinical indistinguishability of SVA-induced lesions from those of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a disease of paramount importance to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). The following analysis synthesizes the most recent and comprehensive data on the global distribution, phylogeographic patterns, transmission mechanisms, and risk factors that define the epidemiology of SVA.

Global Distribution and Phylogeographic Dynamics

The global landscape of SVA has been profoundly shaped by a series of major epizootic events, beginning with the first large-scale outbreaks in Brazil in 2014 and the subsequent rapid dissemination across the Americas and Asia. A landmark phylogeographic analysis, utilizing the most comprehensive dataset of SVA sequences to date, has fundamentally reshaped our understanding of the virus’s origin and global spread. Contrary to earlier assumptions that the virus emerged from the United States, Bayesian phylogeographic inference robustly identifies Brazil as the most probable source of the global SVA pandemic that began in 2015 [25]. This study estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) of all contemporary SVA strains to be around 1986, with a mean substitution rate of 3.35 × 10⁻³ nucleotide substitutions per site per year, a rate consistent with other rapidly evolving RNA viruses [25]. The demographic history of SVA, inferred from Bayesian skyline plots, reveals a pattern of gradual expansion in effective population size from the early 2000s, peaking around 2017, followed by a sharp decline, likely reflecting the impact of widespread immunity and improved biosecurity measures in major pig-producing regions [25].

The phylogeographic connections between North America and the rest of the world are particularly well-documented. Detailed analysis of Canadian SVA isolates from 2015 to 2023 reveals a complex history of bidirectional viral exchange between Canada and the United States [3]. This study further inferred that SVA spread from Canada into Thailand, India, and Mexico, while the United States served as a source for introductions into Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and China, with at least ten separate introduction events identified [3]. This pattern underscores the role of international livestock trade and movement of animals as a primary driver of long-distance viral dissemination. The genetic relatedness of isolates from Taiwan to those from the United States further corroborates this trans-Pacific transmission pathway [6]. The first detection of SVA in Mexico in 2017, with isolates sharing 98.3-98.4% nucleotide identity with US strains from the same year, provides another clear example of this cross-border movement [57]. In Asia, the initial incursion of SVA into China in 2015 was followed by rapid nationwide dissemination. A large-scale epidemiological investigation across 18 Chinese provinces from 2018 to 2021 revealed that while the individual positive rate (IPR) showed a general downward trend, the virus remained highly prevalent, with the highest IPR (11.70%) observed in Southwest China in 2021 [19]. The virus continues to circulate in a complex pattern, with multiple clades co-circulating, as evidenced by the isolation of strains belonging to both Clade I and Clade VII in China in 2019 [19].

Transmission Pathways: Horizontal, Vertical, and Cross-Species

The transmission of SVA is a multi-faceted process, involving several distinct routes that contribute to its persistence within and between herds.

Horizontal Transmission: The primary route of SVA transmission is direct contact between infected and susceptible pigs. The virus is shed in high concentrations in vesicular fluid, feces, and oronasal secretions. Experimental infections have consistently demonstrated that naïve pigs housed in contact with infected animals rapidly seroconvert and develop clinical disease [58]. The detection of SVA RNA in processing fluids (PF) collected from piglets at processing (e.g., castration, tail docking) for an average of 11.8 weeks following a clinical outbreak in breeding herds highlights a prolonged period of environmental contamination and potential for within-herd spread [55]. This finding positions PF testing as a powerful, cost-effective tool for population-level surveillance. The virus can also be shed in the environment, and while its stability is enhanced by organic matter, it is susceptible to heat and common disinfectants. The development of a thermal stabilizer formulation, which maintains viral infectivity for extended periods at elevated temperatures (e.g., only a 1.21 TCID₅₀/mL decrease after 7 days at 42°C), is a critical advancement for vaccine formulation and storage, but also underscores the potential for fomite-mediated transmission under certain environmental conditions [54].

Vertical and Congenital Transmission: A landmark study has provided definitive evidence for the vertical transmission of SVA, a mechanism that explains the severe neonatal mortality observed in outbreaks. In a naturally infected farrow-to-finish herd in Brazil, 50% of sows were viremic prior to farrowing, and 46.7% of their piglets had high viral loads within 24 hours of birth [13]. Critically, infectious virus was isolated from colostrum and milk, confirming that piglets can be exposed both in utero and postnatally. The study also revealed a concerning immunological paradox: despite the presence of high levels of maternally derived neutralizing antibodies in piglet serum, colostrum, and milk, these antibodies were insufficient to prevent viremia or clinical disease in the newborn piglets [13]. This suggests that the timing and nature of the immune response, particularly the role of mucosal immunity, may be critical for protecting neonates. This finding has profound implications for vaccine strategies, indicating that simply inducing high systemic neutralizing antibody titers in sows may not be sufficient to protect their offspring.

Cross-Species Transmission: The host range of SVA, long thought to be restricted to swine, has been expanded by experimental evidence. A buffalo-origin SVA strain (SVA/GD/China/2018) was shown to be pathogenic not only in piglets but also in buffaloes, inducing vesicular lesions in both species [4]. This finding raises the possibility of a sylvatic or reservoir cycle involving bovine species, which could complicate eradication efforts. The study demonstrated that the virus could replicate and cause clinical disease in buffaloes, with antigen detected in upper lip blister tissue, suggesting that cross-species transmission events are biologically plausible [4]. This necessitates enhanced surveillance of SVA in cattle herds, particularly in regions where pigs and cattle are raised in close proximity.

Risk Factors and Seroprevalence

A comprehensive understanding of the risk factors associated with SVA infection is essential for targeted biosecurity interventions. A large-scale seroprevalence study in the United States, involving nearly 5,800 samples from 193 farms across 17 states, estimated farm-level seroprevalence at 17.3% for breeding farms and 7.4% for growing pig farms [22]. This study identified that breeding farms had 2.64 times higher odds of being seropositive compared to growing pig farms, a finding likely attributable to the longer lifespan and greater turnover of animals in breeding herds, which increases the probability of virus introduction and exposure [22]. A critical risk factor identified for breeding farms was the practice of rendering dead animal carcasses, which likely serves as a mechanism for mechanical transmission of the virus back into the herd [22]. Conversely, the adoption of a higher number of farm-level biosecurity measures was associated with a significant protective effect, underscoring the importance of rigorous hygiene and movement controls.

A global systematic review and meta-analysis of SVA prevalence from 2014 to 2020 estimated a pooled global prevalence of 15.90% [18]. The analysis identified several key factors driving heterogeneity in prevalence estimates, including country, sampling year, detection method, and age group. Notably, the prevalence in piglet herds was the highest at 71.69%, a finding that aligns with the documented high mortality and vertical transmission in this age group [18]. In China, a nine-year retrospective serological study (2014-2022) using a highly sensitive and specific 3AB-based indirect ELISA revealed that while seropositivity declined markedly from a peak of 98.85% in 2016 to 62.40% in 2022, the virus continues to circulate actively, indicating that SVA has become endemic in the Chinese swine population [56]. The continued detection of SVA in apparently healthy pigs at slaughterhouses, with an individual positive rate of 2.62% in 2021, highlights the existence of a subclinical carrier state that can perpetuate viral transmission undetected [19].

Temporal and Spatial Patterns

SVA outbreaks exhibit distinct temporal patterns. In the United States, a decade of surveillance data from breeding herds indicates that outbreaks occur more frequently in the second half of the year, with the majority of cases concentrated in the Midwest [9]. This seasonality may be linked to weather patterns, pig movement dynamics, or management practices. In China, the prevalence also shows spatial variation, with the highest rates in Southwest China (11.70% IPR in 2021), followed by Northwest China (3.31%) and Northeast China (2.21%) [19]. These regional differences are likely driven by variations in pig density, biosecurity practices, and the intensity of surveillance. The detection of recombinant SVA strains in Canada, the United States, and China [3, 15, 26] indicates that co-infection with multiple strains is occurring, which can lead to the emergence of novel variants with altered virulence or transmissibility. A recombinant strain isolated in Shandong, China, was found to have a recombination event in the VP2/VP3 region, a critical area for receptor binding and immune evasion [26]. This ongoing genetic evolution, driven by both mutation and recombination, necessitates continuous molecular surveillance to track the emergence of potentially more pathogenic or vaccine-resistant strains.

Clinical Manifestations and Pathological Features of Senecavirus A Infection

Introduction to Clinical Disease

Senecavirus A (SVA), the sole member of the genus Senecavirus within the family Picornaviridae, is an emerging viral pathogen that causes a clinically distinctive yet diagnostically challenging vesicular disease in swine, designated porcine idiopathic vesicular disease (PIVD) [1, 3, 10]. The clinical syndrome induced by SVA is of paramount importance to global swine health authorities, including the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), because the vesicular lesions it produces are clinically indistinguishable from those caused by foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV), and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) [3, 10, 33]. This clinical mimicry necessitates a full foreign animal disease investigation for every suspected case, placing a substantial burden on veterinary diagnostic infrastructure and international trade [3, 9, 22]. The clinical manifestations of SVA infection span a spectrum from subclinical seroconversion to severe, debilitating vesicular disease and acute neonatal mortality, with the severity and presentation varying markedly by age cohort, viral strain, and host immune status [4, 13, 18].

Vesicular Lesions in Grower-Finisher Pigs and Adult Swine

The hallmark clinical manifestation of SVA infection in post-weaned pigs and adult swine is the acute onset of vesicular lesions affecting the coronary bands, hoof bulbs, snout, lips, tongue, and, less frequently, the teats of lactating sows [3, 4, 9, 13]. These lesions typically begin as blanched, fluid-filled vesicles ranging from several millimeters to several centimeters in diameter, which rapidly progress to erosions and ulcerations as the fragile vesicular epithelium ruptures [4, 13]. The coronary band is the most consistently affected anatomical site, and involvement of this structure frequently leads to lameness, hoof wall separation, and, in severe cases, sloughing of the hoof capsule [4, 9]. Affected animals exhibit明显的 pain, reluctance to bear weight on affected limbs, and a characteristic "paddling" gait when forced to move. The vesicular fluid is initially clear and serous but may become turbid or hemorrhagic secondary to bacterial contamination [13]. Lesions on the snout and lips present as coalescing erosions that can interfere with prehension and feeding, contributing to weight loss and extended recovery periods [4].

The temporal progression of these lesions is relatively stereotyped. Vesicles typically appear within 24–72 hours post-infection, rupture within 24–48 hours of formation, and then undergo re-epithelialization over a period of 7–14 days in uncomplicated cases [13, 58]. However, secondary bacterial infections, particularly with opportunistic pathogens such as Trueperella pyogenes and various streptococcal species, can substantially prolong healing and lead to complications including deep-seated abscessation, osteomyelitis of the distal phalanx, and chronic lameness [4]. Importantly, the clinical presentation of SVA-induced vesicular disease is so similar to FMD that experienced swine clinicians and veterinary pathologists cannot reliably differentiate the two conditions on gross examination alone, underscoring the critical need for laboratory confirmation [3, 10, 33].

Neonatal Mortality and Perinatal Disease

One of the most economically devastating manifestations of SVA infection is the syndrome of epidemic transient neonatal losses (ETNL), characterized by acute death in piglets during the first week of life [13, 18, 59]. Affected litters typically experience a sudden spike in mortality, often reaching 30–70% within 24–72 hours of clinical recognition in the sow herd [13, 18]. Piglets may be found dead without premonitory signs, or they may exhibit a brief clinical course marked by profound lethargy, reluctance to nurse, diarrhea, dehydration, and neurological signs including tremors, ataxia, and paddling movements prior to death [13, 59]. The pathogenesis of this neonatal mortality is multifactorial. SVA replicates to high titers in multiple tissues of neonatal piglets, including the heart, liver, lungs, and brain, causing widespread tissue damage and systemic inflammatory responses [4, 13, 70]. Furthermore, vertical transmission of SVA from viremic sows to their offspring has been definitively documented, with infectious virus detected in colostrum and milk, and high viral loads identified in piglet serum within the first 24 hours of life despite the presence of maternally derived neutralizing antibodies [13]. This observation indicates that passive immunity alone is insufficient to protect neonates from clinical disease, a finding with profound implications for vaccine strategy development [13, 58].

Gastrointestinal and Systemic Manifestations

Beyond the classic vesicular lesions, SVA infection is increasingly recognized to cause significant gastrointestinal pathology, particularly in young piglets [24, 47]. Diarrhea, ranging from mild, transient loose stools to profuse, watery diarrhea leading to severe dehydration and electrolyte imbalances, is a frequently reported clinical sign [24, 47]. The mechanistic basis for this enteric involvement has been elucidated through innovative experimental models. Using three-dimensional apical-out porcine intestinal organoids, Wang et al. [47] demonstrated that SVA productively infects multiple intestinal epithelial cell lineages, with enterocytes serving as the primary target cells. The infection then spreads sequentially to enteroendocrine cells, Paneth cells, and intestinal stem cells, ultimately reaching proliferating cells [47]. This pattern of infection disrupts the intestinal epithelial barrier, compromises absorptive and secretory functions, and triggers a robust local innate immune response characterized by significant upregulation of interferon-alpha (IFN-α), interferon-stimulated gene 15 (ISG-15), 2',5'-oligoadenylate synthetase 1 and 2 (OAS1, OAS2), signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1), the mucosal immunity gene Muc2, and the pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) [47]. The induction of stress granules at 4 hours post-infection, followed by their near-disappearance by 20 hours post-infection, suggests a dynamic host-virus interplay at the translational level that may facilitate viral replication while simultaneously triggering innate antiviral defenses [47].

Systemic signs accompanying SVA infection include fever (typically 40–41.5°C), anorexia, depression, and lethargy [4, 24]. In sows, abortion storms have been reported in association with SVA outbreaks, although the direct causal link remains under investigation [13, 60]. The inflammatory cytokine interleukin-1β (IL-1β) plays a pivotal role in driving the systemic inflammatory response. Choudhury et al. [24] demonstrated that SVA infection robustly induces IL-1β production in macrophages both in vitro and in vivo through a mechanism involving the viral 3D polymerase protein. The 1–154 amino acid region of 3D binds directly to the NACHT domain of NLRP3, activating the NLRP3 inflammasome complex and triggering IL-1β secretion [24]. Concurrently, 3D interacts with IKKα and IKKβ to activate NF-κB signaling, facilitating pro-IL-1β transcription, while also inducing calcium influx and potassium efflux that further potentiate inflammasome assembly [24]. This coordinated inflammatory cascade explains the fever, tissue hemorrhage, and swelling observed in infected animals and contributes to the systemic morbidity associated with SVA.

Pathological Features: Gross and Histopathological Findings

Vesicular Lesion Pathology

The gross pathological features of SVA-induced vesicular disease are characterized by the presence of vesicles, erosions, and ulcers on the snout, lips, tongue, coronary bands, and interdigital spaces [4, 13]. Histopathologically, the earliest detectable change is ballooning degeneration and necrosis of keratinocytes within the stratum spinosum of the epidermis, leading to the formation of intraepithelial vesicles [4]. The vesicular cavity contains serous fluid, fibrin, degenerated epithelial cells, and occasional neutrophils. As the lesion progresses, the roof of the vesicle, composed of the stratum corneum and superficial stratum spinosum, becomes necrotic and sloughs, leaving a denuded, ulcerated surface [4]. The underlying dermis exhibits intense congestion, edema, and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate composed predominantly of neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes [4]. In chronic or secondarily infected lesions, granulation tissue formation, fibrosis, and suppurative inflammation may be observed [4].

Systemic Pathology

In neonatal piglets that succumb to acute SVA infection, the most consistent gross pathological findings include pulmonary congestion and edema, hepatomegaly with a mottled appearance, and splenomegaly [4, 70]. Histopathological examination reveals multifocal to coalescing necrosis of hepatocytes with associated inflammatory cell infiltration, interstitial pneumonia characterized by thickening of alveolar septa due to mononuclear cell infiltration and type II pneumocyte hyperplasia, and lymphoid depletion in the spleen and lymph nodes [4, 70]. Myocardial degeneration and necrosis, with or without a mononuclear inflammatory infiltrate, have also been described, potentially contributing to the acute death observed in neonates [70].

Zhou et al. [4] provided a detailed comparative pathological analysis following experimental infection of piglets and buffaloes with a buffalo-origin SVA strain. In piglets inoculated with 10^5.0 TCID50/mL, SVA antigen was detected by immunohistochemistry in lung tissue, chin blister lesion tissue, and nasolabial tissue, confirming the broad tissue tropism of the virus [4]. In buffaloes, antigen was detected in upper lip blister tissue, demonstrating the capacity for cross-species transmission and raising important questions about the potential role of cattle in SVA epidemiology [4].

Intestinal Pathology

Consistent with the clinical observation of diarrhea, histopathological examination of the small intestine from SVA-infected piglets reveals villous blunting and fusion, crypt hyperplasia, and increased apoptosis of enterocytes [47]. The lamina propria is expanded by edema and a mixed inflammatory infiltrate. Immunohistochemical staining confirms the presence of SVA antigen within enterocytes, enteroendocrine cells, Paneth cells, and intestinal stem cells, corroborating the organoid-based infection sequence described by Wang et al. [47]. The disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier likely contributes to the dehydration and electrolyte imbalances observed clinically.

Molecular Pathogenesis: Cellular and Subcellular Pathology

Viral Replication and Cytopathic Effect

SVA exhibits a broad cellular tropism in vitro, productively infecting porcine kidney cells (PK-15, ST), baby hamster kidney cells (BHK-21), and various other cell lines [12, 67, 69]. The cytopathic effect (CPE) induced by SVA is characteristic of picornavirus infection, beginning with cell rounding, shrinkage, and detachment from the monolayer, followed by progressive degeneration and lysis [67, 69]. Comparative transcriptomics analysis of SVA-infected versus non-infected BSR-T7/5 cells revealed 628 differentially expressed genes, including 565 upregulated and 63 downregulated genes, indicating that SVA infection profoundly stimulates transcriptional activity in host cells [12]. Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) enrichment analyses demonstrated that SVA exerts pleiotropic effects on immunity-related pathways, including the RIG-I-like receptor signaling pathway, the JAK-STAT signaling pathway, and the NF-κB signaling pathway [12].

Subversion of Host Antiviral Defenses

The pathological consequences of SVA infection are intimately linked to the virus's sophisticated arsenal of immune evasion strategies. The 3C protease (3Cpro) functions as a master antagonist of the type I interferon response by selectively cleaving and degrading STAT1 and STAT2, thereby blocking JAK-STAT signal transduction [11]. Zhang et al. [11] demonstrated that SVA 3Cpro cleaves human and porcine STAT1 at a leucine-aspartic acid motif (L693/D694), while STAT2 is cleaved at glutamine 707 in both species, with a second cleavage site differing between human (residues 754–757) and porcine (Q758) STAT2. This targeted degradation of key signaling molecules effectively paralyzes the interferon response, facilitating unchecked viral replication [11].

The 3A protein further contributes to immune evasion by functioning as a viral suppressor of RNA interference (VSR). Luo et al. [48] demonstrated that 3A inhibits both double-stranded RNA- and small interfering RNA-induced RNAi by degrading Argonaute 2 (Ago2) through autophagy, thereby escaping a conserved antiviral pathway. Additionally, the 2AB protein antagonizes selective autophagy and type I interferon production by degrading LC3 and MARCHF8, forming a large complex with MAVS to deactivate interferon signaling [44]. The 2B and 3C proteins also collaborate to degrade the antiviral factor DDX21 via the caspase pathway, further suppressing host innate immunity [45].

Metabolic Reprogramming and Mitochondrial Pathology

SVA infection induces profound metabolic reprogramming in host cells, particularly a shift toward aerobic glycolysis (the Warburg effect). Li et al. [50] demonstrated that SVA infection upregulates key glycolytic enzymes including hexokinase 2 (HK2), 6-phosphofructokinase (PFKM), pyruvate kinase M (PKM), phosphoglycerate kinase 1 (PGK1), hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1α), and superoxide dismutase-2 (SOD2) in a dose- and replication-dependent manner. This glycolytic shift enhances lactate production while reducing ATP generation [50]. The accumulated lactate then attenuates the interaction between mitochondrial antiviral-signaling protein (MAVS) and retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I), thereby suppressing RLR signaling and promoting viral replication [50]. This elegant mechanism links cellular metabolism directly to innate immune evasion.

At the mitochondrial level, SVA infection induces complete mitophagy through a sophisticated molecular mechanism. Chen et al. [40] demonstrated that the viral 2C protein directly interacts with mitochondrial Tu translation elongation factor (TUFM) at glutamic acids 196 and 211. TUFM then undergoes K27-linked polyubiquitination catalyzed by the E3 ubiquitin ligase RNF185, which is recognized by the autophagy receptor SQSTM1/p62, leading to sequestration of mitochondria into autophagosomes and subsequent lysosomal degradation [40]. This mitophagy promotes viral replication by removing mitochondria that would otherwise serve as platforms for antiviral signaling.

Nucleocytoplasmic Trafficking and Translational Control

SVA infection dramatically alters the subcellular distribution of host proteins. Li et al. [64] employed subcellular proteomics to identify 484 differentially relocalized proteins during SVA infection, with marked enrichment of nucleocytoplasmic transport proteins. The transcription regulator SIN3A translocates from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, where it suppresses innate antiviral immunity and facilitates viral replication, while RNA binding motif protein 14 (RBM14) promotes innate immunity and inhibits viral replication [64]. The VP3 protein further manipulates the host translation machinery by binding to and relocalizing heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2B1 (hnRNPA2B1). This interaction serves a dual purpose: selectively promoting viral internal ribosome entry site (IRES)-driven translation while simultaneously shutting down host cell protein synthesis, thereby attenuating the interferon response [37].

Clinical Course, Prognosis, and Sequelae

The clinical course of SVA infection in grower-finisher pigs typically follows a self-limiting pattern, with vesicular lesions resolving within 1–3 weeks in the absence of secondary complications [13, 58]. However, the economic impact extends beyond the acute disease phase. Lameness and hoof damage can predispose animals to chronic foot problems, reduced feed intake, and decreased growth rates [9]. In breeding herds, outbreaks can disrupt farrowing schedules and lead to significant neonatal losses [13, 58]. The detection of SVA RNA in processing fluids for an average of 11.8 weeks post-outbreak indicates prolonged viral shedding and environmental contamination, complicating efforts to declare herds free of infection [55].

In neonatal piglets, the prognosis is guarded, with mortality rates ranging from 30% to 70% in affected litters [13, 18]. Piglets that survive the first week of life typically recover, but may experience long-term growth retardation and increased susceptibility to secondary infections [18]. The demonstration of vertical transmission and the failure of maternally derived antibodies to protect neonates from viremia and clinical disease highlight the unique challenges posed by SVA in breeding herds [13].

Differential Diagnosis and Clinical Diagnostic Challenges

The clinical manifestations of SVA infection are pathognomonic only in their similarity to other vesicular diseases. The WOAH-listed differential diagnoses include foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), swine vesicular disease (SVD), and vesicular stomatitis (VS) [3, 10, 33]. In addition, other conditions such as chemical burns, sunburn, thermal injury, and severe exudative epidermitis (greasy pig disease) can produce lesions that may be confused with SVA [10]. The clinical similarity is so pronounced that laboratory confirmation is mandatory for any vesicular disease investigation. Molecular diagnostic tools, including reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) coupled with CRISPR/Cas12a, and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), have been developed to provide rapid, sensitive, and specific detection of SVA RNA in clinical samples [61, 65, 66, 68, 72]. Serological assays, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) targeting structural proteins (VP1, VP2) and nonstructural proteins (3AB, 3C), as well as virus neutralization tests, are employed for retrospective diagnosis and serosurveillance [1, 28, 33, 56, 60, 62, 63, 71].

Epidemiological Context and Global Distribution

Since its emergence as a significant swine pathogen, SVA has been detected in major swine-producing regions worldwide, including North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia [3, 6, 18, 19, 25, 57, 73]. Phylogeographic analyses have revealed complex patterns of international spread, with Brazil identified as a likely source of global dissemination since 2015 [25]. In the United States, SVA continues to affect breeding herds annually, with outbreaks occurring more frequently in the second half of the year and predominantly in the Midwest [9]. Farm-level seroprevalence estimates of 17.3% in breeding farms and 7.4% in growing pig farms underscore the widespread circulation of the virus [22]. In China, despite a declining trend in seroprevalence from 98.85% in 2016 to 62.40% in 2022, SVA transmission persists, with significant regional variation [19, 56]. The virus continues to evolve through recombination and mutation, with novel

Laboratory Diagnostics and Differential Diagnosis

The accurate and timely laboratory diagnosis of Senecavirus A (SVA) infection is a cornerstone of effective swine disease management, given the clinical indistinguishability of porcine idiopathic vesicular disease (PIVD) from several foreign animal diseases (FADs) of critical economic importance. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) classifies foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) as a notifiable disease, and any vesicular condition in swine necessitates an immediate FAD investigation. SVA, as the etiological agent of PIVD, presents a unique diagnostic challenge: its clinical signs, vesicular lesions on the snout, coronary bands, and teats, are pathognomonically identical to those caused by foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), swine vesicular disease virus (SVDV), and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) [1, 3, 10]. Consequently, the laboratory diagnostic framework for SVA must be both comprehensive and highly specific, serving not only to confirm infection but also to definitively rule out these high-consequence pathogens. This section provides an exhaustive analysis of the current laboratory diagnostic modalities for SVA, encompassing molecular detection, serological assays, antigen detection, and the critical framework of differential diagnosis, with a focus on the biological principles and epidemiological context that underpin their application.

Molecular Detection: Nucleic Acid Amplification Technologies

Molecular diagnostics, particularly reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), remain the gold standard for the direct detection of SVA RNA in clinical specimens due to their unparalleled sensitivity and specificity. The SVA genome, a positive-sense single-stranded RNA of approximately 7,300 nucleotides, provides multiple conserved targets for primer and probe design, most commonly within the 3D polymerase (3Dpol) gene, the VP1 capsid gene, and the 5' untranslated region (UTR) [15, 68, 72]. The 3Dpol gene is particularly favored due to its high conservation across SVA clades, ensuring robust detection of emerging variants [68]. These assays are typically applied to vesicular fluid, epithelial tissue swabs, serum, oral fluids, and processing fluids (PF). A pivotal advancement in population-level surveillance is the validation of RT-rtPCR on processing fluids, an aggregate sample collected during routine piglet processing (tail docking, castration). Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that PF remain SVA-positive for an average of 11.8 weeks post-outbreak, offering a cost-effective, non-invasive method for monitoring herd-level viral circulation without the stress and labor of individual animal sampling [55].

While RT-qPCR is the benchmark, its reliance on sophisticated thermal cyclers and trained personnel limits its utility in resource-limited settings or for rapid on-farm decision-making. To address this, a suite of isothermal amplification technologies has been developed, offering speed, portability, and reduced instrumentation requirements. Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) and reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) have been successfully adapted for SVA detection. RPA-based assays, often coupled with lateral flow dipsticks (RPA-LF), can amplify target DNA at a constant low temperature (35-39°C) within 15-30 minutes, with detection limits as low as 15 copies/μL [72]. Similarly, RT-LAMP assays provide rapid visual readouts, often using colorimetric indicators, and have been combined with CRISPR/Cas12a systems to enhance specificity and sensitivity. For instance, an RT-LAMP-Cas12a assay achieved a detection limit of 9.6 copies/μL within 40 minutes, with 100% concordance to RT-qPCR in a pilot clinical study [65]. The integration of CRISPR/Cas12a with RPA has further pushed the boundaries of point-of-care diagnostics. A two-pot and subsequently optimized one-pot RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a assay, utilizing crRNAs targeting canonical or suboptimal protospacer adjacent motifs (PAMs), demonstrated remarkable sensitivity (2 copies/reaction) and specificity (no cross-reactivity with PRRSV, CSFV, or PCV2), with results visualized in under 30 minutes [61]. These technologies represent a paradigm shift, enabling rapid, field-deployable "pen-side" testing that can drastically reduce the time to diagnosis during an outbreak investigation.

Serological Diagnostics: Antibody Detection and DIVA Capabilities

Serological assays are indispensable for retrospective surveillance, determining herd-level exposure, and evaluating vaccine-induced immunity. The humoral immune response to SVA is robust, with antibodies directed against both structural (VP1, VP2, VP3, VP4) and non-structural (3AB, 2C, 3C, 3D) proteins. The choice of antigen target dictates the diagnostic application, particularly regarding the ability to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA).

Structural protein-based ELISAs are primarily used to detect total anti-SVA antibodies, indicative of either infection or vaccination. The VP2 protein, due to its high immunogenicity and sequence conservation, has been a favored target. A double-antigen sandwich ELISA (DAgS-ELISA) based on recombinant VP2 expressed in E. coli demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity (kappa value of 0.78 against VNT), with no cross-reactivity to FMDV, ASFV, or PRRSV [33]. Similarly, VP1-based indirect ELISAs, using proteins expressed in both baculovirus and E. coli systems, have shown strong correlation with virus neutralization tests (VNT), making them suitable for herd immunity assessment [28]. The identification of specific linear B-cell epitopes on VP2, such as 156-NEEQWV-161 and 262-VRPTSPYFN-270, and on VP1, provides a basis for developing epitope-based serological tools that could offer enhanced specificity [2, 27, 35, 41, 42].

Non-structural protein (NSP)-based DIVA ELISAs are the cornerstone of differentiating infected from vaccinated animals. The underlying principle is that inactivated vaccines, which contain only structural proteins, will not induce antibodies against NSPs. Therefore, the presence of antibodies against NSPs like 3AB, 2C, or 3C is a definitive marker of natural infection. The 3AB protein has emerged as the most antigenic and reliable DIVA marker. An indirect 3AB-ELISA demonstrated 91.3% sensitivity and no cross-reaction with other porcine pathogens, and was successfully used for a nine-year retrospective serosurvey in China [56]. More sophisticated DIVA assays have been developed using the 3AB protein expressed in different systems. A baculovirus-expressed 3AB DIVA ELISA achieved 96.67% sensitivity and specificity, while an E. coli-expressed version achieved 100% sensitivity and 93.33% specificity, with both showing strong correlation to the reference method and no cross-reactivity [1]. To further enhance DIVA capability, a multi-antigenic protein combining immunodominant regions of 3AB and 3C (3AB-3C) was designed. This recombinant protein, used as the coating antigen in an indirect ELISA, was applied to over 3,800 field samples, demonstrating its utility for large-scale DIVA-compliant serological monitoring [63]. The identification of highly conserved linear B-cell epitopes on 3AB (e.g., 90NAYDGPKKNS100) and 3C (e.g., 75FTHHGLPTDL85) provides a foundation for next-generation peptide-based DIVA assays that could offer even greater specificity [74].

Competitive and Neutralizing Antibody Detection Assays provide a functional readout of the immune response. A competitive ELISA (NAC-ELISA) using two porcine-derived monoclonal antibodies (1M5 and 1M25) that recognize different conformational epitopes on the intact virion was developed. This assay, which detects neutralizing antibodies, showed 98.11% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with strong agreement to the VNT [71]. A novel liquid-phase blocking ELISA (nbLPB-ELISA) based on a neutralizing nanobody (V1-VHH) was also developed. This assay showed a strong correlation with the VNT (Pearson R² = 0.84) and was able to predict vaccine protection, with neutralizing antibody titers >256 correlating with 100% protection [60]. These functional assays are critical for evaluating vaccine efficacy and understanding the protective immune correlates.

Antigen Detection and Point-of-Care Testing

Rapid antigen detection tests, particularly lateral flow immunochromatographic (LFI) strip tests, offer the ultimate in speed and simplicity for field diagnosis. These assays detect viral antigen directly in clinical samples. A colloidal gold nanoparticle-based LFI strip using monoclonal antibodies against the VP2 protein (4B10 as capture, 1E3 as detector) demonstrated a detection limit of 0.5 ng/mL and 90% concordance with RT-PCR, with no cross-reactivity to FMDV, PRRSV, or CSFV [30]. For serological applications, an LFI strip test using the 3AB NSP was developed to detect anti-SVA antibodies in serum. This test, which provides results within 15 minutes, showed 97.97% sensitivity and 90.00% specificity compared to the VNT, making it a powerful tool for rapid herd-level serosurveillance [62]. These point-of-care tests are invaluable for initial screening during FAD investigations, allowing for immediate triage while samples are sent for confirmatory molecular testing.

Differential Diagnosis: The Critical Framework

The differential diagnosis of vesicular disease in swine is a systematic process mandated by WOAH guidelines. The clinical presentation of SVA, vesicles, erosions, and ulcers on the snout, tongue, coronary bands, and teats, is indistinguishable from FMD, SVD, and VS. Therefore, any suspect case must trigger a full FAD investigation. The laboratory plays a central role in this process, employing a panel of tests to rule out these high-consequence pathogens.

1. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus (FMDV): The primary differential. FMD is a devastating transboundary disease with severe economic consequences. Laboratory diagnosis relies on RT-qPCR targeting the 3D or 5' UTR regions of FMDV, antigen detection ELISAs (e.g., using serotype-specific monoclonal antibodies), and virus isolation on primary bovine thyroid or BHK-21 cells. Serological tests include NSP ELISAs for DIVA purposes and structural protein ELISAs for serotyping. SVA assays must explicitly demonstrate no cross-reactivity with FMDV, a criterion met by all validated SVA tests [33, 71].
2. Swine Vesicular Disease Virus (SVDV): A porcine enterovirus that causes a milder, often subclinical disease. Diagnosis is via RT-qPCR or virus isolation on IB-RS-2 or PK-15 cells. SVDV is antigenically distinct from SVA, and cross-reactivity is not a major concern.
3. Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV): A rhabdovirus that affects cattle, horses, and pigs. Diagnosis involves RT-qPCR, virus isolation on Vero cells, and complement fixation or serum neutralization tests. VSV is endemic in the Americas and must be considered in suspect cases from endemic regions.

Beyond these WOAH-listed diseases, other conditions can cause vesicle-like lesions in pigs, including chemical burns, sunburn, grease pig disease (exudative epidermitis caused by Staphylococcus hyicus), and biotin deficiency. These are typically differentiated by history, lesion distribution, and the absence of systemic signs. The diagnostic algorithm for a suspect vesicular case should proceed as follows: (1) Immediate notification of veterinary authorities. (2) Collection of vesicular fluid, epithelial tissue, and serum. (3) Initial screening with a rapid SVA antigen or nucleic acid test (e.g., LFI strip or RPA). (4) Simultaneous submission of samples to a WOAH reference laboratory for confirmatory RT-qPCR and virus isolation for FMDV, SVDV, and VSV. (5) Serological testing for SVA antibodies (e.g., 3AB-ELISA) to confirm exposure and for DIVA purposes if vaccination is implemented. The development of multiplex RT-qPCR panels that can simultaneously detect SVA, FMDV, SVDV, and VSV in a single reaction would represent a significant advancement, streamlining the diagnostic workflow and reducing turnaround times during high-stakes FAD investigations.

Vaccination Strategies and Control Measures

The control of Senecavirus A (SVA) presents a singularly complex challenge for the global swine industry, a challenge that is inextricably linked to the virus’s clinical mimicry of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and other vesicular foreign animal diseases (FADs). As Kikuti et al. [9] and Preis et al. [22] have documented, every outbreak of vesicular disease in an FMD-free country triggers a costly and labor-intensive FAD investigation. Consequently, an effective vaccination strategy for SVA cannot be viewed solely through the lens of clinical protection; it must be integrated into a comprehensive framework that includes robust differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) capabilities, enhanced biosecurity, and active surveillance. The past decade has witnessed remarkable progress in SVA vaccinology, moving from experimental whole-virus inactivated formulations to sophisticated platforms such as virus-like particles (VLPs), recombinant viral vectors, and multi-epitope nanoparticle vaccines. Concurrently, diagnostic innovations, from lateral flow immunochromatographic strips to CRISPR-based nucleic acid detection, have advanced to the point where a coordinated, multi-layered control program is now technically feasible.

Vaccine Platforms and Immunogenicity

The most extensively characterized vaccine platform for SVA remains the whole-virus inactivated vaccine. Buckley and Lager [58] provided a landmark demonstration of its efficacy in weaned pigs and mature sows, showing that two intramuscular doses of an inactivated SVA vaccine, administered three weeks apart, elicited robust neutralizing antibody titers. Crucially, vaccinated animals challenged intranasally with SVA did not develop vesicular disease and exhibited limited rectal shedding, indicating a reduction in transmission risk. Perhaps most significantly, piglets suckling immunized dams possessed neutralizing titers prior to challenge and neither replicated nor shed virus, confirming the potential for maternally derived passive immunity to protect neonates, the demographic most vulnerable to acute death [13, 58]. This work underscored that an efficacious vaccine could directly reduce the burden of FAD investigations in addition to improving animal welfare.

Subsequent studies have refined the inactivated vaccine approach through systematic adjuvant screening. Zhang et al. [78] compared the Montanide ISA 201 adjuvant with Imject Alum in mice and pigs, demonstrating that the ISA 201 formulation induced superior humoral and cellular immune responses. Pigs immunized with the SVA inactivated vaccine (strain CH-GX-01-2019) combined with ISA 201 showed significantly reduced viral loads in tissues and blood, with no clinical symptoms observed after challenge. Wang et al. [77] extended this work by evaluating four different adjuvants, GEL 02, ISA 201, IMS 1313, and Rehydragel LV, in a mouse model using a novel mutant SVA strain (CH/JL/2022). The SVA-GEL vaccine induced the most robust lymphocyte proliferation and the highest levels of IgG1, IgG2a, and neutralizing antibodies, with a Th2-biased response that correlated with enhanced resistance to infection. Barbosa et al. [79] further confirmed the immunogenicity of a contemporary Brazilian inactivated strain in mice, demonstrating not only high IgG levels but also proliferation of CD3e+CD4+CD44+CD62L− effector/memory T cells, a critical component of durable immunity.

Beyond conventional inactivated vaccines, the development of virus-like particle (VLP)-based vaccines represents a significant advancement in safety and immunogenicity. Zhang et al. [81] successfully assembled SVA VLPs using a baculovirus expression vector system, co-expressing capsid proteins VP1-VP3 and VP2-VP4 in Sf9 insect cells. When formulated with ISA 201 adjuvant, the VLP vaccine induced neutralizing antibody titers and T-cell cytokine responses in pigs that were comparable to or exceeded those of inactivated vaccines. A high-dose VLP regimen provided 100% protection against SVA challenge, with the lowest tissue viral loads among all experimental groups. The VLP platform offers intrinsic advantages: it presents conformationally authentic epitopes without requiring live virus handling, eliminating the need for biosafety level 3 facilities during production.

The nanoparticle vaccine concept, pioneered by Cao et al. [76], leverages the β-annulus peptide from tomato bushy stunt virus as a 24-polymeric nanoscaffold to display SVA B-cell epitopes from VP1 (amino acids 21–26) and the full-length VP2 protein. This construct, produced in a low-cost prokaryotic expression system, induced high levels of neutralizing antibodies in both mice and swine after a two-dose regimen. In a swine challenge experiment, the nanoparticle vaccine achieved an 80% protection rate, matching that of a conventional inactivated vaccine, while offering the manufacturing and stability advantages of a prokaryotic expression platform.

Recombinant viral vector vaccines offer another strategic avenue, particularly for bivalent protection against SVA and other endemic swine pathogens. Tao et al. [36, 70] constructed recombinant pseudorabies virus (PRV) strains expressing SVA VP2 or VP3 proteins, respectively, within a TK/gE/gI deletion backbone. The rPRV-XJ-ΔTK/gE/gI-VP2 and rPRV-XJ-ΔTK/gE/gI-VP3 constructs were safe in mice, induced neutralizing antibodies against both PRV and SVA, and provided 100% protection against virulent PRV challenge. Notably, vaccination with these recombinants significantly reduced SVA viral loads in murine heart and liver tissues, suggesting potential for cross-protection against heterologous SVA strains. The multi-epitope recombinant protein vaccine developed by Zhang et al. [41], designated rP2, incorporates nine B-cell epitope domains from VP1 and VP2. This rationally designed antigen induced 80% protection against homologous SVA challenge in piglets, demonstrating that a precisely engineered subunit vaccine can achieve efficacy comparable to whole-virus platforms while enabling DIVA compatibility.

The Critical Imperative of DIVA Diagnostics

Any vaccination program for SVA must be implemented within a surveillance infrastructure capable of reliably distinguishing vaccinated animals from those naturally infected. This is not merely a technical refinement; it is a regulatory necessity in the context of FAD surveillance. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) guidelines for vesicular disease control mandate that vaccines used in FMD-free regions must be accompanied by DIVA-compliant diagnostic tests to ensure that serological surveillance can detect incursions of field virus. Watcharavongtip et al. [1] directly addressed this need by developing two versions of a DIVA ELISA based on the non-structural protein 3AB, one expressed in a baculovirus system (sensitivity 96.67%, specificity 96.67%) and one in E. coli (sensitivity 100%, specificity 93.33%). The rationale is that inactivated and subunit vaccines, which primarily contain structural proteins, will elicit antibodies predominantly against VP1, VP2, and VP3, whereas natural infection exposes the host to the full repertoire of non-structural proteins, including 3AB. Thus, seropositivity to 3AB serves as a marker of active or past infection.

The epitope mapping studies that underpin these DIVA reagents have progressed rapidly. Ling et al. [59] identified a linear epitope (⁵NDDTPVDEALGR¹⁶) on the 3A protein, and Meng et al. [75] further refined the minimal motif to ¹SPNEND⁶, with Asn³ as the critical residue. Li et al. [74] characterized three additional B-cell epitopes on 3AB and 3C proteins (⁹⁰NAYDGPKKNS¹⁰⁰, ⁷⁵FTHHGLPTDL⁸⁵, and ⁹⁵DQMPARNSRV¹⁰⁵), all highly conserved across SVA strains. Ye et al. [29] mapped epitopes on the 2C protein (¹⁶²DGYKGQF¹⁶⁸ and ³⁴LQAWINKE⁴¹), providing additional DIVA targets. The convergence of these studies establishes a robust panel of non-structural protein antigens suitable for multiplexed serological assays.

The practical deployment of DIVA diagnostics has been facilitated by the development of rapid, point-of-care formats. Watcharavongtip et al. [62] created a colloidal gold nanoparticle-based lateral flow immunochromatographic (LFI) strip test for detecting antibodies against the 3AB protein. This test delivers results within 15 minutes, achieves 97.97% sensitivity and 90.00% specificity compared to virus neutralization assays, and shows no cross-reactivity with other common swine pathogens. Such a tool is invaluable for on-farm surveillance during vaccination campaigns, enabling rapid triage of suspect cases and reducing reliance on centralized laboratory testing. Similarly, Pei et al. [30] developed a VP2-based lateral flow assay for direct antigen detection, with a detection limit of 0.5 ng/mL and 90% concordance with RT-PCR, offering a complementary tool for identifying actively infected animals.

Integrated Control: Vaccination, Biosecurity, and Surveillance

A successful SVA control program must be multi-faceted. The epidemiological data from Preis et al. [22] clearly demonstrate that farm-level risk factors, including the practice of rendering dead animal carcasses, significantly increase the odds of SVA seropositivity, whereas the adoption of higher numbers of biosecurity measures is protective. Bioseguridad must therefore form the foundation upon which vaccination strategies are built. The phylogeographic analyses of Hole et al. [3] and Wu et al. [25] reveal that SVA has spread globally in a complex pattern, with Brazil proposed as a major source of dissemination since 2015. This underscores the need for regional coordination: unilateral vaccination in one country will have limited impact if neighboring regions remain endemic.

Surveillance methodology has also advanced. Preis et al. [55] demonstrated that testing processing fluids, the fluids collected from piglet processing at farrowing, provides a cost-effective, aggregate sampling method for detecting SVA at the population level, with samples remaining RT-rtPCR-positive for an average of 11.8 weeks after an outbreak. This approach can be integrated into routine management practices to monitor the effectiveness of vaccination programs and detect early signs of viral recrudescence. For point-of-care diagnostics, the RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a system developed by Zhao et al. [61] achieves a detection limit of just two copies of SVA RNA within 30 minutes, with 100% concordance with qPCR in a pilot clinical validation. Jiang et al. [65] similarly demonstrated that RT-LAMP combined with CRISPR/Cas12a detection can achieve a sensitivity of 9.6 copies/μL in 40–45 minutes, with no cross-reactivity to non-target viruses. These molecular tools provide the sensitivity necessary for early outbreak detection, while the lateral flow serological tests [30, 62] enable assessment of herd-level immunity and DIVA differentiation.

The biological mechanisms of SVA immune evasion, detailed in a growing body of literature, have direct implications for vaccine design. The 3C protease of SVA cleaves STAT1 and STAT2 to antagonize type I interferon signaling [7, 11], while the 2AB protein degrades LC3 and MARCHF8 to suppress autophagy and interferon production [44]. The VP3 protein relocalizes hnRNPA2B1 to promote viral IRES-driven translation while shutting down host translation [37]. These insights have led to strategies for enhancing vaccine immunogenicity, such as the inclusion of RNA-based adjuvants that activate RIG-I signaling [49, 80] or the design of rationally attenuated strains that retain immunogenicity while losing immune evasion functions. The identification of conserved neutralizing epitopes, such as the VP2 epitope ¹⁵¹SLQELN¹⁵⁶ recognized by neutralizing monoclonal antibodies [27], provides a molecular rationale for epitope-focused vaccine design. Zou et al. [27] demonstrated that mAbs targeting this epitope neutralize SVA with IC₅₀ values as low as 0.64 μg/mL, and the epitope is highly conserved across global SVA strains, making it an ideal component of a synthetic vaccine.

The potential for cross-species transmission, demonstrated by Zhou et al. [4] in buffaloes, and the detection of SVA in Thailand [73] and Mexico [57] as recent introductions, further emphasizes the need for vaccination programs that are adaptive and responsive to emerging viral diversity. Recombination events, documented in SVA genomes from Canada, the United States, and China [3, 26], necessitate periodic reassessment of vaccine strain selection. The beneficial effect of thermal stabilizers for SVA antigens, as optimized by Hu et al. [54] using a Box-Behnken design formulation (9.9% sucrose, 9.9% sorbitol, 0.06 M L-arginine), which maintained viral infectivity for up to 7 days at 42°C, is a practical consideration for vaccine distribution in regions where cold chain integrity cannot be guaranteed.

References

[1] Watcharavongtip P, Jermsutjarit P, Tantituvanont A, Nilubol D. Development of a differentiating of infected from vaccinated animal (DIVA) ELISA to detect antibodies against Senecavirus A in pigs using two expression systems of non-structural proteins. Veterinary Quarterly. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2024.2449082

[2] Jiang Y, Guo Z, Weng M, Chen L, Li Q, Zhang L, et al.. Identification of linear B-cell epitopes of Senecavirus A VP2 protein using monoclonal antibodies. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1546925

[3] Hole K, Vernygora OV, Handel K, Nebroski M, Lung O, Nfon C, et al.. Phylogeographic Characterizations of Recent (2015–2023) Senecavirus A Isolates from Canada. Viruses. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v17020141

[4] Zhou X, Zhai Q, Niu J, Li G, Chen T, Li Y, et al.. Pathogenicity of the First Buffalo-origin Senecavirus A in Conventional Piglets and Buffaloes. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/tbed/6222217

[5] Li H, Yu X, Guo R, Jia W, Qi W, Ning Z. Zinc-finger antiviral protein inhibits replication of Senecavirus A by the short isoform activating RIG-I signaling pathway and the longer isoform targeting viral 3Dpol.. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.145255

[6] Pan C, Tsai K, Chang J, Deng M, Lin N, Lager K, et al.. Phylogenetic Characterization and Seroprevalence of Senecavirus A from Swine Farms in Taiwan. Animals. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15192786

[7] Zhou H, Wang M, Xin Z, Li Y, Liu F. Virulence determinant of Senecavirus A: 3C protein functions as a protease to cleave viral polyprotein and host factors. Virulence. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2025.2580080

[8] Meng L, Xiang X, Qi X, Zhou H, Xiao P, Meng F, et al.. Identification Epitope on VP4 Protein of Senecavirus A Recognized by a Monoclonal Antibody. Animal Research and One Health. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/aro2.70029

[9] Kikuti M, Yue X, Melini C, Vadnais S, Corzo C. Senecavirus A Incidence in U.S. Breeding Herds: A Decade of Surveillance Data. Animals. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15111650

[10] Su B, Wu Z, Hu G. Advancements in Molecular Detection Technology of Senecavirus A: A Comprehensive Review. Advances in Precision Medicine. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18063/apm.v10i1.702

[11] Zhang X, Li P, Chen W, Zhang S, Li K, Ru Y, et al.. Impaired interferon response in senecavirus A infection and identification of 3Cpro as an antagonist. Journal of Virology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00585-24

[12] Li Y, Chu H, Jiang Y, Li Z, Wang J, Liu F. Comparative transcriptomics analysis on Senecavirus A-infected and non-infected cells. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1431879

[13] Schaefer R, Gava D, Bombassaro G, Haach V, Maciag S, Bastos AP. Evidence of vertical transmission of Senecavirus A in naturally infected sows.. Virology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2024.110248

[14] Hou L, Zeng P, Wu Z, Yang X, Guo J, Shi Y, et al.. Heat shock protein 70 enhances viral replication by stabilizing Senecavirus A nonstructural proteins L and 3D. Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01414-7

[15] Li L, Wang X, Chen L, Li J, Xue Y, Lin H, et al.. Genetic evolutionary analysis of a strain of Senecavirus A in Anhui and the establishment of its detection method.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2024.105665

[16] Chu H, Wang L, Wang J, Zhang Y, Jin N, Liu F, et al.. Genomic profile of eGFP-tagged senecavirus A subjected to serial plaque-to-plaque transfers.. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2024.106661

[17] Wang Q, Meng H, Ge D, Shan H, Geri L, Liu F. Structural and nonstructural proteins of Senecavirus A: Recent research advances, and lessons learned from those of other picornaviruses.. Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2023.06.004

[18] Ran X, Hu Z, Wang J, Yang Z, Li Z, Wen X. Prevalence of Senecavirus A in pigs from 2014 to 2020: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.22307

[19] Li C, Gao C, Tao L, Cui J, Zhang H, Zheng H, et al.. Epidemiological investigation of Senecavirus A infection in pig herds in China from 2018 to 2021. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1391513

[20] Zhao D, Li Y, Li Z, Zhu L, Sang Y, Zhang H, et al.. Only fourteen 3′-end poly(A)s sufficient for rescuing Senecavirus A from its cDNA clone, but inadequate to meet requirement of viral replication. Virus Research. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2023.199076

[21] Zhao D, Wang Q, Wang M, Lyu L, Liu S, Jiang Y, et al.. A putative wild-type or wild-type-like hairpin structure is required within 3' untranslated region of Senecavirus A for virus replication.. Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2023.05.008

[22] Preis G, Sanhueza J, Vilalta C, Vannucci F, Culhane M, Corzo C. Senecavirus A seroprevalence and risk factors in United States pig farms. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2022.1011975

[23] Luo D, Wang H, Wang Q, Liang W, Liu B, Xue D, et al.. Senecavirus A as an Oncolytic Virus: Prospects, Challenges and Development Directions. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.839536

[24] Choudhury SM, Ma X, Zeng Z, Luo Z, Li Y, Nian X, et al.. Senecavirus a 3D Interacts with NLRP3 to Induce IL-1β Production by Activating NF-κB and Ion Channel Signals. Microbiology spectrum. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02097-21

[25] Wu H, Li C, Ji Y, Mou C, Chen Z, Zhao J. The Evolution and Global Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Senecavirus A. Microbiology spectrum. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02090-22

[26] Ma Y, Zheng L, Li C, Wu X, Shi J, Liu C, et al.. A novel VP2/VP3 recombinant of Senecavirus A isolated in northern China. Veterinarski arhiv (Tisak). 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24099/vet.arhiv.2146

[27] Zou W, Li Q, Li C, Meng Z, Sun Y, Yang S, et al.. Fine mapping of conserved neutralizing epitopes within the VP2 protein of Senecavirus A using monoclonal antibodies.. Virology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2025.110501

[28] Watcharavongtip P, Jermsutjarit P, Tantituvanont A, Nilubol D. Evaluating the performance of VP1 expressed in baculovirus and Escherichia coli expressed from Senecavirus A in pig using an ELISA.. The Veterinary Journal. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2025.106346

[29] Ye H, Li Q, Liu S, Zhou L, Ge X, Gao P, et al.. Identification of two conserved linear antigenic epitopes on the 2C protein of Senecavirus A.. Virology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2025.110525

[30] Pei X, Wang J, Wei Z, Li Y, Wu M. Rapid detection of Senecavirus A using a colloidal gold lateral flow strip. Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrep.2025.102240

[31] Zeng P, Mao J, Guo J, Yang X, Shi Y, Wang X, et al.. The E3 ubiquitin ligase STUB1 inhibits Senecavirus A replication by mediating VP1 ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. Journal of Virology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01152-25

[32] Tian Z, Lv L, Chen S, An M, Li M, Yuan W, et al.. Identification of conformational epitopes on VP1 of Senecavirus A by monoclonal antibodies and phage display.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110636

[33] Chen J, Shi Z, Luo J, Jia C, Zhang X, Wei J, et al.. Development and optimization of a double antigen sandwich ELISA detecting for Senecavirus A antibodies based on VP2 protein. Microbiology spectrum. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.02043-24

[34] Hou L, Wu Z, Zeng P, Yang X, Shi Y, Guo J, et al.. RSAD2 suppresses viral replication by interacting with the Senecavirus A 2 C protein. Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01370-2

[35] Zhou H, Sun M, Su S, Meng L, Yang W, Yang L, et al.. Identification of a linear B-cell epitope on the “puff” loop of the Senecavirus A VP2 protein involved in receptor binding. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1387309

[36] Tao Q, Xu L, Zhang Y, Yang Y, Liu Z, Xu T, et al.. The construction and immunogenicity analyses of a recombinant pseudorabies virus with Senecavirus A VP3 protein co-expression.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2024.110011

[37] Li L, Li X, Zhong H, Li M, Wan B, He W, et al.. VP3 protein of Senecavirus A promotes viral IRES-driven translation and attenuates innate immunity by specifically relocalizing hnRNPA2B1. Journal of Virology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01227-24

[38] Xiao P, Meng L, Cui X, Liu X, Qin L, Meng F, et al.. VP0 Myristoylation Is Essential for Senecavirus A Replication. Pathogens. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070601

[39] Houston ER, Saeng-chuto K, Jermsutjarit P, Giménez-Lirola LG, Sinha A, Mora-Díaz J, et al.. Characterization of the immunodominant regions of Senecavirus A-VP1 structural protein via ELISA epitope mapping.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2024.110266

[40] Chen M, Zhang X, Kong F, Gao P, Ge X, Zhou L, et al.. Senecavirus A induces mitophagy to promote self-replication through direct interaction of 2C protein with K27-linked ubiquitinated TUFM catalyzed by RNF185. Autophagy. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15548627.2023.2293442

[41] Zhang Z, Yao F, Lv J, Ding Y, Liu X, Zhang L, et al.. Identification of B-cell epitopes on structural proteins VP1 and VP2 of Senecavirus A and development of a multi-epitope recombinant protein vaccine.. Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2023.03.015

[42] Ru Y, Hao R, Wu C, Li Y, Lu B, Liu H, et al.. Identification of Potential Novel B-Cell Epitopes of Capsid Protein VP2 in Senecavirus A. Microbiology spectrum. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.04472-22

[43] Meng H, Wang X, Wang L, Wang Q, Zhu L, Sang Y, et al.. Identification of cis-acting replication element in VP2-encoding region of Senecavirus A genome.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109717

[44] Sun D, Kong N, Dong S, Chen X, Qin W, Wang H, et al.. 2AB protein of Senecavirus A antagonizes selective autophagy and type I interferon production by degrading LC3 and MARCHF8. Autophagy. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15548627.2021.2015740

[45] Zhao K, Guo X, Liu S, Liu X, Han Y, Wang L, et al.. 2B and 3C Proteins of Senecavirus A Antagonize the Antiviral Activity of DDX21 via the Caspase-Dependent Degradation of DDX21. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.951984

[46] Wang M, Zhao D, Li J, Zhu L, Duan X, Zhang Y, et al.. AAACH is a conserved motif in a cis-acting replication element that is artificially inserted into Senecavirus A genome. Virus Research. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2023.199269

[47] Wang Y, Wei Z, Li J, Wang X, Jiang Y, Cui W, et al.. Senecavirus a can replicate in apical-out porcine intestinal organoids and induce stress granules and innate immune response. Virulence. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2025.2548623

[48] Luo M, Xie X, Wang D, Li X, Ling X, Yuan W, et al.. Senecavirus A nonstructural protein 3A Inhibits Ago2-mediated RNAi antiviral response.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110547

[49] Li H, Chen M, Zheng T, Lei X, Lin C, Li S, et al.. IFITM1 and IFITM2 inhibit the replication of senecavirus A by positive feedback with RIG-I signaling pathway.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2024.110050

[50] Li H, Lin C, Qi W, Sun Z, Xie Z, Jia W, et al.. Senecavirus A-induced glycolysis facilitates virus replication by promoting lactate production that attenuates the interaction between MAVS and RIG-I. PLoS Pathogens. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1011371

[51] Yan J, Gao Y, Bai J, Li J, Li M, Liu X, et al.. SERPINB1 promotes Senecavirus A replication by degrading IKBKE and regulating the IFN pathway via autophagy. Journal of Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01045-23

[52] Chen Y, Zhong W, Xie Z, Li B, Li H, Gao K, et al.. Suppressor of cytokine signaling 1 (SOCS1) inhibits antiviral responses to facilitate Senecavirus A infection by regulating the NF-κB signaling pathway.. Virus Research. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2022.198748

[53] Xu F, Dang W, Li T, Wang Y, Yang F, Zheng H. IFIT3 mediated the type I interferon antiviral response by targeting Senecavirus A entry, assembly and release pathways.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2022.109594

[54] Hu Z, Huang J, Zhao S, Zhou H, Sun S, Wen X, et al.. Development of a thermal stabilizer formulation optimized by response surface methodology for Senecavirus A antigen.. Journal of Pharmacy and Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2024.11.013

[55] Preis G, Benjamin NR, Murray D, Taylor E, Copeland S, Allison G, et al.. First assessment of weeks-to-negative processing fluids in breeding herds after a Senecavirus A outbreak. Porcine Health Management. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-023-00353-7

[56] Yan J, Gao Y, Li J, Li M, Guo C, Bai J, et al.. The Establishment and Application of Indirect 3AB-ELISA for the Detection of Antibodies against Senecavirus A. Viruses. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v15040861

[57] Navarro‐López R, Rosa JPl, Rocha-Martínez M, Hernandez GG, Villarreal-Silva M, Solís-Hernández M, et al.. First detection and genetic characterization of Senecavirus A in pigs from Mexico. Journal of swine health and production. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54846/jshap/1358

[58] Buckley A, Lager K. Efficacy of an inactivated Senecavirus A vaccine in weaned pigs and mature sows.. Vaccine. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.02.018

[59] Ling X, Zhang B, Ren H, Li M, Liu S, Luo M, et al.. Preparation and epitope identification of a novel monoclonal antibody against 3A protein of Senecavirus A.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110442

[60] Mu S, Pan S, Dong H, Wu J, Zhang Y, Yin S, et al.. A neutralizing nanobody-based liquid-phase blocking ELISA to assess the protective potency of Senecavirus A vaccine. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-025-13492-4

[61] Zhao X, Jiang G, Ruan Q, Qu Y, Yang X, Shi Y, et al.. Rapid Visual Detection of Senecavirus A Based on RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a System with Canonical or Suboptimal PAM. Viruses. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v17091264

[62] Watcharavongtip P, Jermsutjarit P, Tantituvanont A, Nilubol D. Development of a colloidal gold nanoparticle-based lateral flow immunochromatographic (LFI) strip test for detecting Senecavirus A (SVA) antibodies in pigs using non-structural protein.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110614

[63] Li D, Deng J, Wang Z, Zhang Y, Li Y, Hao L, et al.. Indirect ELISA Using Multi-Antigenic Dominants of 3AB and 3C Recombinant Protein to Detect Antibodies Against Senecavirus A in Pigs. Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12111046

[64] Li M, Deng X, Zhou M, Wan H, Shi Y, Zhang L, et al.. Subcellular proteomics reveals the crosstalk between nucleocytoplasmic trafficking and the innate immune response to Senecavirus A infection.. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.139898

[65] Jiang C, Wang H, Guo R, Yang R, Li X, Liu P, et al.. Rapid molecular detection of Senecavirus A based on reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and CRISPR/Cas12a. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1451125

[66] He W, Liao K, Li R, Peng W, Qian B, Zeng D, et al.. Development of a CRISPR/Cas12a-based fluorescent detection method of Senecavirus A. BMC Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-04116-6

[67] Wang H, Mo Y, Liu W, He Q, Ren T, Kang O, et al.. Construction and characterization of Recombinant Senecavirus A Expressing Secreted Luciferase for antiviral screening.. Journal of Virological Methods. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2024.114932

[68] Song Y, Fang Y, Zhu S, Wang W, Wang L, Chen W, et al.. A rapid and visual detection assay for Senecavirus A based on recombinase-aided amplification and lateral flow dipstick. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2024.1474676

[69] Huang W, Chen Y, Xu T, Xiong T, Lv Y, Liu D, et al.. Development and characterization of a recombinant Senecavirus A expressing enhanced green fluorescent protein. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1443696

[70] Tao Q, Zhu L, Xu L, Yang Y, Zhang Y, Liu Z, et al.. The Construction and Immunogenicity Analyses of a Recombinant Pseudorabies Virus with Senecavirus A VP2 Protein Coexpression. Microbiology spectrum. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.05229-22

[71] Ma X, Huang J, Li K, Ding K, Fu Y, Zhang J, et al.. Development and Evaluation of a Competitive Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Based on Swine Monoclonal Antibodies for Detecting Neutralizing Antibodies against Senecavirus A. Microbiology spectrum. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.04599-22

[72] Wang H, Dong J, Zhang T, Wang F, Yang R, Zhang Y, et al.. A novel rapid detection of Senecavirus A using recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA) coupled with lateral flow (LF) dipstrip.. Analytical Biochemistry. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2022.114627

[73] Saeng-chuto K, Rodtian P, Temeeyasen G, Wegner M, Nilubol D. The first detection of Senecavirus A in pigs in Thailand, 2016. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12654

[74] Li J, Yan J, Gao Y, Liu X, Sun H, Bai J, et al.. Identification of new conserved linear B-cell epitopes in the 3AB and 3C protein of Senecavirus A.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109780

[75] Meng L, Tian X, Xiang X, Qi X, Zhou H, Xiao P, et al.. Epitope Mapping of Senecavirus A 3A Protein Using Monoclonal Antibodies. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/tbed/3398924

[76] Cao N, Li Y, Zhang H, Liu X, Liu S, Lu M, et al.. A nanoparticle vaccine based on the VP121-26 and VP2 structural proteins of Senecavirus A induces robust protective immune responses.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2024.110198

[77] Wang B, Gao F, Hu R, Huyan H, Wang G, Cao Z, et al.. Development and evaluation of inactivated vaccines incorporating a novel Senecavirus A strain-based Immunogen and various adjuvants in mice. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1376678

[78] Zhang J, Wang P, Li Z, Xie Y, Jin N, Zhang H, et al.. Adjuvant screening of the Senecavirus A inactivated vaccine in mice and evaluation of its immunogenicity in pigs. BMC Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-03949-5

[79] Barbosa AdO, Gava D, Tochetto C, Ribeiro LC, Bastos AP, Mores M, et al.. Immunogenicity of an Inactivated Senecavirus A Vaccine with a Contemporary Brazilian Strain in Mice. Vaccines. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines12080845

[80] Li H, Xie Z, Lei X, Chen M, Zheng T, Lin C, et al.. TRIM5 inhibits the replication of Senecavirus A by promoting the RIG-I-mediated type I interferon antiviral response. Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01354-2

[81] Zhang J, Wang P, Li Z, Xie Y, Jin N, Han J, et al.. Construction and immunogenicity of Senecavirus A virus-like particle vaccine with adjuvant.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109971