Canine Papillomavirus

Overview and Taxonomy of Canine Papillomavirus

The family Papillomaviridae encompasses a remarkably diverse and ancient group of small, non-enveloped, double-stranded DNA viruses that exhibit a pronounced tropism for cutaneous and mucosal stratified squamous epithelium. Within this expansive family, the canine papillomaviruses (CPVs) represent a distinct and increasingly complex assemblage of pathogens that infect the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). The study of CPV is not merely a niche area of veterinary virology; it serves as a critical foundation for understanding viral oncogenesis, host-pathogen co-evolution, immune evasion, and the development of comparative oncology models that have direct translational relevance to human medicine [1, 25, 28]. The taxonomic framework of CPV has undergone substantial revision in the past two decades, driven by the discovery of novel genotypes through advanced molecular techniques such as rolling circle amplification (RCA), next-generation sequencing (NGS), and consensus PCR-based screening [2, 4, 26]. This section provides an exhaustive examination of the virological and taxonomic landscape of CPV, detailing the historical context, genomic architecture, phylogenetic relationships, and the biological implications of the increasingly intricate classification system.

Canine papillomaviruses are now recognized as the etiological agents of a wide spectrum of epithelial proliferative lesions, ranging from the classical, self-limiting oral papillomas (warts) to persistent cutaneous viral plaques, endophytic and inverted papillomas, and, critically, malignant neoplasms including in situ and invasive squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) [1, 5, 8, 11]. As of the most recent characterizations, 26 distinct CPV types have been formally identified and sequenced from domestic dogs, with the most recent additions including CPV24, CPV25, and CPV26 [4, 26, 27]. These types are distributed across three distinct genera within the Papillomaviridae family: Lambdapapillomavirus, Chipapillomavirus, and the newly designated Omegapapillomavirus [4, 25]. This taxonomic diversity reflects not only the evolutionary history of the virus but also correlates strongly with tissue tropism, lesion phenotype, and oncogenic potential.

Taxonomic History and Diversity

The foundational discovery of canine papillomavirus dates back to the characterization of the canine oral papillomavirus (COPV), now formally designated CPV1 (species Lambdapapillomavirus 2). The complete genome of CPV1 was initially sequenced by Delius et al. (1994), revealing a remarkably large genome of 8,607 base pairs, the largest known among all papillomaviruses at the time [31]. This seminal work established the genomic architecture for the genus, highlighting a unique and expansive 1.5 kb noncoding intervening sequence between the E2 and L2 open reading frames, a feature that remains a defining characteristic of the Lambdapapillomavirus genus [31]. For many years, CPV1 was considered the primary, if not sole, papillomavirus of dogs, responsible for the classic contagious oral papillomatosis seen in young animals and kennel environments [17, 30]. However, the advent of broad-range PCR primers, particularly the FAP59/FAP64 and MY09/MY11 systems, coupled with the increasing use of NGS in veterinary diagnostics, has led to an explosion in the discovery of novel CPV types [20, 29].

The first major expansion of CPV diversity came with the description of CPV2 (also previously referred to as CfPV-2), isolated from a footpad lesion of a Golden Retriever by Yuan et al. (2007). This virus was so genetically divergent from CPV1 that it was assigned to a novel genus (now classified within Chipapillomavirus), sharing only 57% nucleotide homology in the highly conserved L1 gene [24]. This discovery fundamentally altered the perception of CPV, demonstrating that dogs could harbor genetically distinct papillomaviruses with divergent biological properties, including the presence of an E5 open reading frame (ORF) which is absent in CPV1 [24]. Subsequent systematic surveys of canine proliferative lesions, particularly pigmented viral plaques, have been extraordinarily fruitful. Luff et al. (2012) used PCR analysis of 27 pigmented plaques to identify DNA from ten different PVs, including six putative novel sequences, demonstrating that the diversity of CPV within a single lesion type was vastly underestimated [29]. This work paved the way for the formal characterization of numerous additional types, including CPV3, CPV4, CPV5, CPV6, and CPV8, which are now recognized as canonical members of the Chipapillomavirus genus [3, 29].

The taxonomic classification of CPVs is governed by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), which defines a new papillomavirus type based on a nucleotide sequence identity of less than 90% in the L1 ORF to any existing type. Using this criterion, the identification of CPV types has accelerated rapidly. Lange et al. (2016) identified CPV18 from pigmented plaques in a Pug, placing it within the Chipapillomavirus genus [16]. Luff et al. (2015) characterized CPV16 from a metastasizing SCC, a virus of particular concern due to its demonstrated ability to integrate into the host genome, a hallmark of high-risk HPV in humans [9, 19]. Most recently, Munday et al. (2024) described CPV26, which represents a landmark discovery: the first canine PV to be classified within the Omegapapillomavirus genus. Phylogenetic analysis of CPV26 placed it not with other canine viruses but within a clade containing PVs from a variety of Caniform species, including the giant panda, Weddell seal, and polar bear [4]. This finding provides compelling evidence that papillomaviruses have co-evolved with their hosts over deep evolutionary timescales, and that the current Omegapapillomavirus genus likely infected a common ancestor of the Caniformia suborder [4].

Genomic Architecture and Phylogenetic Relationships

The genome of CPV, like all papillomaviruses, is a circular, double-stranded DNA molecule of approximately 7.5 to 8.6 kb. Despite the conservation of the basic genomic organization, an early region encoding regulatory and oncogenic proteins (E1, E2, E4, E5, E6, E7) and a late region encoding the structural L1 and L2 capsid proteins, there is remarkable variation across CPV genera in terms of gene content and nucleotide sequence [24, 31].

CPV1, as the prototype of the Lambdapapillomavirus genus, possesses the largest genome (8,607 bp) and is characterized by the absence of an E5 ORF [31]. In contrast, CPV2 and many other Chipapillomavirus types (e.g., CPV6, CPV9, CPV16) contain a distinct E5 ORF situated between the E2 and L2 coding regions [24]. The presence of E5 is biologically significant, as the E5 oncoprotein in high-risk HPVs collaborates with E6 and E7 to promote cellular proliferation and evade immune surveillance [28]. The genomic distinctions between CPV1 and CPV2 are also reflected in their tissue tropism: CPV1 is primarily a mucosal pathogen, causing oral papillomas, while CPV2 exhibits a cutaneous tropism, infecting haired skin and footpads [10, 14, 24].

Phylogenetic analyses, typically based on the highly conserved L1 gene, have consistently resolved CPVs into three major clades. The Lambdapapillomavirus genus contains CPV1, which shares a closer phylogenetic relationship with cutaneous PVs from other species, such as human papillomavirus type 1 (HPV-1) and cottontail rabbit PV (CRPV), than with other CPVs [31]. The Chipapillomavirus genus is the most populated and diverse, encompassing the majority of CPV types associated with pigmented viral plaques and SCCs. This genus can be further subdivided into species. For example, CPV4, CPV16, and CPV24 cluster together in species 2 (ChiPV2), while CPV3, CPV9, CPV12, CPV15, and others form distinct species groups [13, 18, 22, 27]. The recent addition of CPV25 to species 3 ChiPVs further underscores the ongoing expansion of this clade [26]. The Omegapapillomavirus genus now contains a single canine representative, CPV26, which is phylogenetically distinct from both the Lambda- and Chipapillomaviruses, bridging the evolutionary gap between canine and other Caniform PVs [4].

Biological and Clinical Relevance of Taxonomy

The taxonomic classification of CPVs is not merely an academic exercise; it has profound implications for understanding disease pathogenesis, predicting clinical outcomes, and developing targeted interventions. There is a strong correlation between CPV genotype and the morphology and behavior of the induced lesions. CPV1 is overwhelmingly associated with classical exophytic papillomas of the oral cavity, which typically regress spontaneously due to a robust cell-mediated immune response [10, 21]. However, the "low-risk" status of CPV1 has been challenged. Reports by Thaiwong et al. (2018) and Ibarra et al. (2018) have documented malignant transformation of CPV1-associated oral papillomas into invasive SCCs, particularly in immunocompromised hosts or those receiving immunosuppressive therapy [11, 23]. This suggests that even prototypical "low-risk" genotypes possess latent oncogenic potential under certain selective pressures.

Conversely, the Chipapillomaviruses are more frequently implicated in persistent, non-regressing lesions and malignant progression. CPV2, for example, is a well-established cause of cutaneous papillomas on footpads and haired skin, and in immunodeficient dogs, such as those with X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (XSCID), CPV2 infections are prone to progress to locally invasive and metastatic SCC [7, 12, 24]. Significantly, the oncogenic mechanism of CPV2 appears to differ from that of high-risk HPV. Quinlan et al. (2021) demonstrated that CPV2 E6 does not degrade the p53 tumor suppressor protein, nor does it interfere with UVB-induced upregulation of p53-regulated genes (p21, Bax, Bak), suggesting a p53-independent pathway to carcinogenesis [7]. Furthermore, CPV2 E6 and E7 have been shown to abrogate the constitutive and induced expression of type I and type III interferons and interferon-stimulated genes in keratinocytes, providing a critical mechanism for immune evasion and viral persistence [12].

Other Chipapillomaviruses, such as CPV16, CPV9, and CPV15, have been specifically associated with SCCs. Chang et al. (2020) detected CPV9 and CPV15 in canine SCC specimens, while CPV16 was the most frequently detected genotype in SCCs from a large retrospective cohort [8]. The oncogenic potential of CPV16 is further supported by the first documentation of viral genome integration into the host genome in a canine cancer, a hallmark of high-risk PV-induced carcinogenesis [9]. The identification of a truncated E2 protein and a chimeric E8^E2 protein in a CPV9 strain isolated from recurrent SCCs further highlights the complex genomic alterations that may drive malignant transformation [13].

Current State of Knowledge and Gaps

As of the present, the known CPV virome includes 26 fully characterized types, but surveys of pigmented plaques and other lesions continue to reveal novel sequences, indicating that the true diversity is significantly greater [26, 29]. The recent detection of human papillomavirus DNA (HPV78 and HPV94) in canine serum raises intriguing questions about the potential for cross-species transmission, although the infectivity and biological relevance of these findings remain unconfirmed [6]. Furthermore, the discovery of CPV19 alongside CPV1 and CPV2 within a single oral papilloma demonstrates that mixed infections are common, complicating the traditional view of one virus-one lesion [15]. The continued application of unbiased metagenomic sequencing and robust quantitative PCR assays, as recently described by Zhou et al. (2025), will be essential for a comprehensive census of CPV diversity and for establishing reliable epidemiological baselines [2]. Understanding this taxonomy is the first and most critical step toward the development of broadly protective vaccines and genotype-specific diagnostic tools that can distinguish between incidental infections and those with high oncogenic risk [1, 2].

Molecular Pathogenesis and Oncogenic Mechanisms of CPV

The molecular pathogenesis of canine papillomavirus (CPV) represents a complex, multi-faceted interplay between viral oncoproteins, host cellular machinery, and the immune microenvironment. Unlike the well-characterized high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs), CPV types exhibit a remarkable diversity in their genomic architecture, tissue tropism, and oncogenic potential, necessitating a nuanced understanding of their distinct mechanisms. This section dissects the molecular underpinnings of CPV-induced carcinogenesis, from the initial viral entry and genome maintenance to the subversion of cellular growth control, immune evasion, and the critical events that precipitate malignant transformation.

Genomic Organization and Viral Life Cycle

The CPV genome, a circular double-stranded DNA molecule of approximately 7.5 to 8.6 kilobase pairs, adheres to the canonical papillomavirus organization but harbors unique features that dictate its pathogenic profile. The genome is divided into an early region (E), a late region (L), and a long control region (LCR). The early genes, E1, E2, E4, E5, E6, and E7, are expressed immediately upon infection and orchestrate viral replication, transcription, and cellular transformation. The late genes, L1 and L2, encode the major and minor capsid proteins, respectively, which are essential for virion assembly and infectivity. The LCR contains the origin of replication and binding sites for cellular and viral transcription factors, governing the temporal and spatial expression of viral genes.

A defining characteristic of CPV, particularly CPV1 (formerly COPV), is its unusually large genome of 8607 base pairs, the largest among all known papillomaviruses [31]. This is attributable to a unique 1.5-kilobase intervening noncoding sequence situated between the E2 and L2 open reading frames, a feature absent in most other PVs [31]. The functional significance of this large intervening sequence remains an active area of investigation, but it may contribute to post-transcriptional regulation or RNA stability, potentially influencing the virus’s mucosal tropism and its ability to establish persistent infections. In contrast, the epidermotropic CPV2 possesses a more compact genome of 8101 base pairs, with a significantly abbreviated early-late region and the presence of an E5 open reading frame, which is absent in CPV1 [24]. This E5 gene, located between E2 and the late region, is a hallmark of CPV2 and is implicated in its enhanced oncogenic potential, particularly in the context of immunosuppression [24]. The presence or absence of E5, along with variations in E6 and E7, fundamentally shapes the pathogenic trajectory of different CPV types.

The Oncogenic Triad: E6, E7, and E5 Mechanisms

The transformative capacity of CPV is primarily driven by the early oncoproteins E6 and E7, and, in select genotypes, E5. These proteins function by hijacking critical cellular pathways that govern cell cycle progression, apoptosis, and DNA damage repair. However, the molecular details of these interactions in CPV diverge significantly from their HPV counterparts, revealing a unique evolutionary adaptation.

E7-Mediated Disruption of the Retinoblastoma (pRb) Pathway

The retinoblastoma protein (pRb) is a master regulator of the G1/S cell cycle checkpoint. In high-risk HPVs, the E7 protein binds to pRb via a conserved LXCXE motif, targeting it for ubiquitin-mediated proteasomal degradation, thereby releasing E2F transcription factors and driving unscheduled S-phase entry. Remarkably, CPV2 E7 lacks a functional LXCXE motif, possessing a serine substitution at the critical cysteine residue (LXSXE) [34]. Despite this variation, CPV2 E7 retains the ability to bind and degrade pRb with comparable efficiency to HPV E7 [34]. This is achieved through an alternative mechanism: the dominant pRb-binding site maps to the C-terminal domain of CPV2 E7, rather than the conserved region 2 (CR2) used by HPV [34]. Furthermore, while the CR1 and CR2 domains of HPV E7 are sufficient for pRb degradation, the C-terminal region of CPV2 E7 is absolutely required for this function [34]. This finding indicates that CPV2 has evolved a distinct molecular interface for pRb inactivation, potentially allowing it to evade host immune surveillance or interact with a different subset of cellular proteins. This alternative binding mechanism is also shared by gamma-HPV types, suggesting a common evolutionary lineage among PVs that infect immunocompromised hosts [34]. The functional consequence is identical: constitutive activation of E2F target genes, promoting cellular proliferation and creating a permissive environment for viral genome amplification.

E6 and the p53 Paradox: A p53-Independent Oncogenic Pathway

In high-risk HPVs, the E6 oncoprotein recruits the E6-associated protein (E6AP) ubiquitin ligase to target the tumor suppressor p53 for rapid proteasomal degradation, effectively disabling the cell’s primary DNA damage response and apoptotic machinery. This is a cornerstone of HPV-mediated carcinogenesis. In stark contrast, CPV2 E6 does not degrade p53 [7]. Studies using canine keratinocyte models have demonstrated that CPV2 E6 fails to interfere with ultraviolet B (UVB)-induced upregulation of p53 and its downstream target genes, including p21, Bax, Bak, and lncRNA-p21 [7]. This suggests that CPV2 employs a fundamentally different, p53-independent mechanism to promote oncogenesis. The absence of p53 degradation implies that CPV2 must circumvent apoptosis and growth arrest through alternative pathways, potentially by modulating other members of the p53 family (p63 or p73) or by directly inhibiting pro-apoptotic signaling cascades. This p53-independent strategy may explain why CPV2-associated cancers often require co-factors, such as UV radiation or profound immunosuppression, to accumulate the necessary genetic damage for malignant progression [7, 24]. The persistence of functional p53 in CPV2-infected cells also has implications for therapeutic strategies, as DNA-damaging chemotherapies that rely on p53 activation may retain efficacy against these tumors.

The Role of E5 in CPV2 Pathogenesis

The E5 oncoprotein, present in CPV2 but absent in CPV1, is a small, hydrophobic transmembrane protein that is a potent oncogene in its own right. In HPV, E5 enhances growth factor receptor signaling, particularly the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and modulates endocytic trafficking. The presence of an E5 ORF in CPV2, coupled with its association with highly metastatic squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), strongly suggests that E5 contributes to the aggressive phenotype of CPV2-induced lesions [24]. While the specific molecular interactions of CPV2 E5 remain to be fully elucidated, it is hypothesized to function similarly to its HPV counterpart by prolonging EGFR signaling, thereby driving sustained proliferation and inhibiting apoptosis. The enlarged E4 ORF in CPV2, one of the largest among all PVs, may also play a role in disrupting keratin intermediate filaments, facilitating viral egress and contributing to the cytopathic effects observed in infected tissues [24].

Viral Genome Integration: A Critical Step in Malignant Progression

A hallmark of high-risk HPV-induced carcinogenesis is the integration of the viral genome into the host chromosome, which disrupts the E2 gene, leading to loss of negative feedback on E6/E7 expression and genomic instability. For decades, it was debated whether CPV integration occurred. Definitive evidence for CPV integration was first provided by Luff et al. (2019), who demonstrated that CPV16, a chipapillomavirus associated with pigmented viral plaques that progressed to metastatic SCC, undergoes viral genome integration into the host genome [9]. Using a combination of PCR and high-throughput sequencing, they identified multiple viral genomic deletions, translocations, and four distinct sites of host integration within the SCC [9]. The deletions involved portions of the E1 and E2/E4 genes, mirroring the pattern seen in HPV where E2 disruption leads to deregulated E6/E7 expression [9]. This finding was a landmark discovery, establishing CPV16 as a potential canine high-risk papillomavirus type and providing a mechanistic basis for its oncogenic potential. The identification of integration events in CPV16, but not yet in other CPV types, suggests that the ability to integrate is a genotype-specific trait, likely dependent on the specific sequence and structure of the viral genome. The integration process itself is a potent driver of genomic instability, as it can lead to insertional mutagenesis, chromosomal rearrangements, and the activation of cellular oncogenes near the integration site.

Immune Evasion: Subverting the Innate and Adaptive Responses

The ability of CPV to establish persistent infections, a prerequisite for malignant transformation, hinges on its capacity to evade the host immune system. CPV has evolved sophisticated strategies to subvert both innate and adaptive immunity, particularly within the keratinocyte, its primary target cell.

Interference with Interferon Signaling

Keratinocytes are equipped with pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), such as RIG-I, MDA5, and IFI16, that detect viral nucleic acids and trigger the production of type I and type III interferons (IFNs). These IFNs induce an antiviral state through the expression of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs). CPV2 has been shown to be a master manipulator of this pathway. Initial studies demonstrated that canine keratinocytes infected with CPV2 fail to upregulate antiviral cytokines, including IFN-β, tumor necrosis factor-α, and ISGs, even though they possess functional PRRs that respond robustly to synthetic dsDNA and dsRNA ligands [33, 36]. This indicates that CPV2 actively suppresses the innate immune response from the moment of infection.

The molecular basis for this suppression has been partially elucidated. CPV2 E6 interferes with the constitutive expression of IFN-β and the ISG IFIT1 [12]. More importantly, both E6 and E7 cooperate to block the transcriptional upregulation of a broad panel of antiviral cytokines in response to stimulation with dsDNA (Poly(dA:dT)) and dsRNA (Poly(I:C)) [12]. While E6 broadly inhibits the response to both stimuli, E7 has a more selective effect, primarily blocking the response to dsDNA and only a subset of dsRNA-induced cytokines [12]. Furthermore, CPV2 E7, but not E6, abrogates signaling through the type I IFN receptor, effectively rendering the cell deaf to IFN signals from neighboring cells [12]. This multi-pronged attack, inhibiting both the production and the reception of IFN signals, creates a profoundly immunocompromised microenvironment within the infected epithelium, allowing the virus to replicate unchecked.

Evasion of Adaptive Immunity and the Role of Immunosuppression

The adaptive immune response, particularly cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), is critical for the clearance of PV-infected cells. CPV lesions typically regress spontaneously in immunocompetent hosts, driven by a robust cell-mediated immune response. However, in immunocompromised dogs, whether due to genetic defects like X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (XSCID), advanced age, concurrent illness, or iatrogenic immunosuppression (e.g., corticosteroids, cyclosporine), CPV infections become persistent and are far more likely to progress to malignancy [1, 5, 23, 24]. The canine XSCID model has been instrumental in demonstrating this principle; these dogs develop severe, unrelenting CPV2 infections that frequently progress to invasive and metastatic SCC [7, 12, 36]. This underscores the absolute requirement of an intact immune system for controlling CPV infection. The virus itself contributes to this immune evasion by downregulating major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I expression on infected keratinocytes, a common strategy among PVs to avoid CTL recognition. The specific mechanisms by which CPV achieves this remain an area of active research, but likely involve the E5 or E7 proteins.

Molecular Signatures of Malignant Transformation: p53, p16, and Proliferation Markers

The transition from a benign papilloma to an invasive carcinoma is accompanied by distinct molecular alterations. Immunohistochemical analysis of CPV-associated lesions has revealed consistent patterns. In CPV1-associated oral papillomas that undergo malignant transformation, there is evidence of mutant p53 protein accumulation, suggesting that p53 dysfunction, even in the absence of viral degradation, is a key event [35]. This is supported by the finding that CPV1-infected cells within benign papillomas and progressing lesions show increased expression of p53 and p16 proteins, a pattern that mirrors the surrogate markers of HPV-driven transformation in human cervical cancer [23]. The overexpression of p16 in CPV-associated SCCs is particularly intriguing, as it is a well-established biomarker for high-risk HPV infection in humans. In dogs, p16 upregulation may reflect a compensatory mechanism in response to the loss of pRb function mediated by E7. Furthermore, a high cell proliferation index, as measured by Ki-67 staining, is a consistent feature of CPV-induced lesions, particularly those with malignant potential [35]. The shift in the Bax/Bcl-2 ratio in favor of the pro-apoptotic Bax, despite the presence of mutant p53, suggests that the apoptotic machinery is still partially functional, but is ultimately overwhelmed by the proliferative drive [35].

Type-Specific Oncogenic Risk and the Concept of High-Risk CPV

Not all CPV types are created equal. Epidemiological and molecular evidence has established a hierarchy of oncogenic risk among CPV genotypes. CPV1, the classic cause of oral papillomatosis, was historically considered a low-risk virus. However, a growing body of evidence challenges this notion. Multiple case reports and retrospective studies have documented the malignant transformation of CPV1-induced oral papillomas into invasive oral SCC (OSCC), particularly in dogs receiving immunosuppressive therapy [11, 23]. The detection of CPV1 DNA within the SCC, coupled with the exclusion of other CPV types, strongly implicates CPV1 as a direct etiological agent in these cases [11]. This has led to the hypothesis that altered host immunity or environmental co-factors, such as increased UV exposure, may be unmasking the latent oncogenic potential of this “low-risk” virus [23].

In contrast, CPV2 is unequivocally associated with high-risk, aggressive disease. It is the primary cause of persistent footpad papillomatosis that progresses to metastatic SCC in immunodeficient dogs [24]. Its genome encodes E5, and its E7 uses a unique pRb-binding mechanism [24, 34]. The chipapillomaviruses, particularly CPV16, also exhibit high-risk features. CPV16 has been shown to integrate into the host genome, a hallmark of high-risk PVs, and is frequently detected in SCCs [8, 9, 19]. CPV9 and CPV15 have also been identified in SCCs, suggesting they too possess malignant potential [8]. The detection of CPV17 in a primary corneal pigmented SCC further expands the list of potentially oncogenic CPV types [32]. This diversity in oncogenic potential underscores the need for genotype-specific diagnostic and prognostic tools in veterinary medicine. The development of universal and quantitative PCR assays, capable of detecting and quantifying all known CPV types, represents a critical step forward in identifying high-risk infections and monitoring disease progression [2].

Epidemiology and Genotypic Diversity of Canine Papillomavirus

Taxonomic Landscape and the Expanding Virosphere of Canis Familiaris

The epidemiological understanding of Canine Papillomavirus (CPV) has undergone a paradigm shift over the past two decades, transitioning from a perception of a singular etiological agent, Canine Oral Papillomavirus (COPV), now known as CPV1, to a recognition of a remarkably diverse and complex viral family infecting domestic dogs. Currently, 26 distinct CPV types have been fully characterized and formally recognized, classified into at least four genera: Lambdapapillomavirus, Chipapillomavirus, Taupapillomavirus, and the recently established Omegapapillomavirus [4, 25]. This taxonomic expansion reflects not merely an increase in genomic surveillance but a fundamental re-evaluation of CPV’s host range, tissue tropism, and pathogenic potential. The discovery of CPV26 within the Omegapapillomavirus genus is particularly significant, as it represents the first papillomavirus from a domestic species to cluster with viruses previously identified exclusively in non-domestic Caniform species such as the giant panda, Weddell seal, and polar bear [4]. This finding provides compelling molecular evidence for a long evolutionary history of co-speciation between papillomaviruses and their Caniform hosts, suggesting that the CPV virosphere may be far more extensive than current sampling indicates.

Global Prevalence and Geographic Distribution

The prevalence of CPV infection varies dramatically across geographic regions, clinical contexts, and diagnostic methodologies employed. Serological surveys have provided foundational data on population-level exposure, with a landmark study revealing seroprevalence rates of 10.5% for CPV1 and 1.3% for CPV3 in Swiss dogs, compared to markedly higher rates of 21.9% for CPV1 and 26.9% for CPV3 in dogs from South Africa [44]. This disparity underscores the influence of environmental factors, management practices, and potentially breed-specific susceptibility on transmission dynamics. The widespread application of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection, including universal and quantitative approaches targeting conserved regions of the L1 gene, has dramatically enhanced diagnostic sensitivity and enabled large-scale epidemiological surveillance [2]. In the Brazilian Amazon, a region of extraordinary biodiversity yet scarce virological data, molecular investigation of 61 dogs with papillomatous lesions revealed a positivity rate of 49.2%, with the vast majority attributable to CPV1 (Lambdapapillomavirus 2), and a single case of CPV8 (Chipapillomavirus 3) [3]. Complete genome sequencing of CPV1 strains from this Amazonian cohort demonstrated high genetic identity with isolates from other Brazilian regions, suggesting a widely disseminated and evolutionarily stable viral lineage circulating across vast geographic distances [3]. Conversely, the identification of CPV25 exclusively from a localized cluster of viral plaques confined to the pinna of a single dog in New Zealand highlights the potential for rare, highly tissue-restricted CPV types with limited geographic distribution [26]. These contrasting patterns suggest that while some CPV types are globally ubiquitous, others may exhibit niche specialization or be only sporadically encountered.

Genotype-Specific Epidemiology and Pathological Associations

The clinical expression of CPV infection is inextricably linked to the infecting genotype, and the epidemiological evidence increasingly supports a model of genotype-specific tropism and oncogenic potential. CPV1 (COPV) remains the most widely recognized and extensively studied type, principally associated with classical oral papillomatosis in young dogs [11, 21, 30]. Historically considered a strictly benign, self-limiting infection of mucosal epithelium, the epidemiological landscape of CPV1 has been complicated by accumulating evidence of its oncogenic capacity. A seminal retrospective study documented a series of seven dogs in which CPV1-associated benign papillomas underwent histologically confirmed malignant transformation to carcinoma in situ and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) [23]. This observation, corroborated by a well-documented case of a persistent CPV1-induced oral papilloma progressing to oral SCC in a three-year-old Labrador Retriever [11], challenges the long-held dogma that CPV1 is a low-risk papillomavirus. The detection of mutant p53 protein and elevated cell proliferation indices in CPV1-positive oral papillomas further supports a mechanistic link between viral infection and dysregulation of cellular growth control [35]. However, a rigorous investigation employing real-time PCR and RNA detection found CPV1 DNA in only 10% (3/33) of oral SCCs, with no detectable viral RNA expression, suggesting that in most cases, CPV1 may represent an incidental passenger rather than a direct oncogenic driver [21]. This apparent contradiction likely reflects a multifactorial process wherein CPV1 infection, host immunosuppression (whether iatrogenic, age-related, or genetic), and environmental co-factors such as ultraviolet (UV) radiation converge to facilitate malignant progression in a subset of cases.

In stark contrast to CPV1, CPV2 (Taupapillomavirus) exhibits a distinct epidemiological profile centered on cutaneous and pedal lesions. Originally cloned from a footpad papilloma in a Golden Retriever, CPV2 has been implicated in a spectrum of proliferative lesions including endophytic papillomas, inverted squamous papillomas, and footpad papillomatosis [10, 14, 24, 37]. The association between CPV2 and malignant transformation is particularly well-established in the context of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (XSCID), a naturally occurring canine model that recapitulates the human phenotype. XSCID dogs develop severe, persistent CPV2 infections that frequently progress to highly metastatic SCC, providing an invaluable spontaneous animal model for investigating the immunopathogenesis of papillomavirus-associated cancer [7, 12, 36]. Mechanistically, CPV2 E6 and E7 oncoproteins subvert innate antiviral immunity by interfering with constitutive and induced expression of type I and type III interferons and interferon-stimulated genes in keratinocytes, thereby facilitating viral persistence [12]. Unlike high-risk human papillomaviruses, CPV2 E6 does not degrade p53 or interfere with UVB-induced upregulation of p53-regulated genes, suggesting a p53-independent mechanism of oncogenesis [7]. Furthermore, CPV2 E7 utilizes a unique C-terminal domain, rather than the canonical LXCXE motif, to bind and destabilize the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein pRb, a mechanism shared with gamma human papillomaviruses [34]. These fundamental molecular differences underscore the necessity of genotype-specific epidemiological surveillance.

The Chipapillomavirus Genus: Viral Plaques and Malignant Potential

The Chipapillomavirus genus has emerged as the most genotypically diverse and pathologically intriguing group of CPVs, encompassing types CPV3, CPV4, CPV5, CPV6, CPV8, CPV9, CPV12, CPV15, CPV16, CPV17, CPV18, CPV19, CPV24, and CPV25 [4, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 29, 39]. The vast majority of these types have been identified in association with pigmented viral plaques, a distinct clinical entity characterized by multiple, sessile, hyperpigmented lesions most commonly found on the ventral abdomen and medial thighs of predisposed breeds, particularly Pugs and their crosses. The breed association is so strong that it suggests a genetic predisposition, possibly involving altered keratinocyte differentiation or impaired immune surveillance, that facilitates ChiPV infection and plaque formation. Molecular epidemiological studies utilizing PCR and sequencing of the L1 gene from 27 pigmented plaques revealed DNA from ten distinct PV types, including six putative novel sequences, with CPV4 being the most prevalent, detected in 41% (11/27) of cases [29].

Beyond their association with benign plaques, multiple ChiPV types have been definitively linked to SCC development. CPV16 was the first CPV type demonstrated to undergo viral genome integration into the host genome, a hallmark of high-risk papillomavirus-induced carcinogenesis in humans [9]. Using a combination of PCR and high-throughput sequencing, researchers identified deletion of portions of the E1 and E2/E4 genes, two viral genome translocations, and four distinct sites of CPV16 integration into the host genome within a pigmented viral plaque that progressed to metastatic SCC [9]. This landmark finding positions CPV16 as a putative high-risk CPV type. CPV9 has likewise been detected in recurrent SCCs, and comparative whole-genome analysis of CPV9 strains from malignant versus benign lesions identified a 328-base pair deletion at the 3′ end of the E2 gene and spacer sequence in the SCC-derived strain, encoding a truncated E2 protein and a chimeric E8^E2 fusion [13]. This deletion may represent a critical genetic event in malignant transformation, potentially analogous to the disruptive E2 gene mutations observed in high-risk HPV-associated cervical cancer. CPV17 has been amplified from a primary corneal pigmented SCC, expanding the anatomical spectrum of ChiPV-associated malignancy and highlighting the importance of considering viral etiology in pigmented ocular masses [32]. CPV18 has been detected not only in pigmented plaques but also in adjacent basal cell tumors, suggesting a possible etiological role in this distinct neoplasia [39]. A particularly concerning epidemiological trend has been the reported increase in the number of CPV1-associated papillomas exhibiting histological evidence of malignant transformation over the past decade, despite a stable annual incidence of canine viral papilloma diagnoses in the referring diagnostic laboratory [23]. This observation raises the alarming possibility that environmental or iatrogenic co-factors are augmenting the oncogenic potential of traditionally low-risk CPV types, a hypothesis warranting urgent investigation.

Co-Infections, Mixed Lesions, and Viral Diversity within Individual Hosts

The application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and sensitive universal PCR strategies has revealed a previously unappreciated level of viral complexity within individual lesions and hosts. The detection of CPV26 required co-amplification with CPV1 from a single oral papilloma [4], while deep sequencing of virions extracted from another oral papilloma revealed the simultaneous presence of CPV1, CPV2, and a novel CPV19, demonstrating that individual papillomas can harbor multiple viral species [15]. In an investigation of Greyhound corns (hard, painful footpad protuberances), PV DNA was amplified from all four lesions examined, with two different PV types identified: one closely related to CPV12 and a novel PV showing 78% similarity to CPV16 [20]. Notably, one corn lesion harbored co-infection with both identified viruses, suggesting that these painful lesions may have a polymicrobial viral etiology. Another large-scale PCR-based study of 53 classical canine papillomas found that CPV1 and CPV2 co-infections accounted for approximately 20% of all detected infections, with CPV1 predominating in oral lesions and CPV2 predominating in cutaneous endophytic papillomas [10]. These findings challenge the traditional one-lesion, one-virus paradigm and raise fundamental questions about potential interactions between co-infecting CPV types. Do these viruses compete for cellular resources, or do they synergistically promote lesion development and malignant progression? Could the presence of one type modulate the immune response to another, facilitating persistence? The epidemiological and clinical significance of these mixed infections remains largely unexplored and represents a critical knowledge gap.

Emerging Insights from Atypical Hosts and Unusual Lesions

The application of molecular diagnostic tools to atypical clinical presentations has continuously expanded the recognized host range and pathological spectrum of CPV. The unexpected detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA, specifically alpha2-HPV78 and alpha2-HPV94, in the serum of 2 out of 1,226 dogs (0.16%) in Guangxi, China, challenges the long-held assumption of strict host species restriction for PVs [6]. While virus isolation was not achieved and the biological significance remains to be determined, this finding raises the intriguing possibility of cross-species transmission events, with implications for both veterinary and public health. Similarly, the detection of CPV DNA in 76% (16/21) of canine transmissible venereal tumor (CTVT) samples using L1-targeted primers suggests a potential, albeit controversial, association between papillomavirus and this unique transmissible cancer [42]. The presence of viral DNA in a neoplasia known to be clonally transmitted through allogeneic grafting does not establish causation but does warrant further investigation into whether papillomavirus co-infection could influence CTVT pathogenesis or immune evasion.

Conversely, rigorous application of PCR-based screening has excluded CPV involvement in several canine ocular proliferations where a viral etiology was previously hypothesized. No papillomavirus DNA was detected in 99 cases of canine Meibomian gland adenomas or epitheliomas [40], nor in 37 cases of canine lobular orbital adenomas [43]. These negative results are equally important, as they establish the specificity of CPV disease associations and redirect etiological investigations toward alternative mechanisms for these tumors. The systematic failure to detect CPV in oral mucosal melanomas further reinforces the genotype- and lesion-specific nature of CPV epidemiology [41].

Host Factors and Immunological Determinants of Epidemiological Patterns

The epidemiology of CPV infection is profoundly modulated by host immunological status. The increased incidence and severity of CPV-associated lesions in immunocompromised dogs, whether due to XSCID, drug-induced immunosuppression (e.g., long-term corticosteroid administration), or advanced age, underscores the critical role of cell-mediated immunity in controlling viral replication and lesion development [4, 7, 38]. A systematic review of CPV case reports identified that lesions develop at lower CD4 and CD8 lymphocyte counts, emphasizing that immune competence is a primary determinant of disease outcome [5]. A case report of a Pug that developed CPV12-positive viral plaques only after long-term systemic prednisolone therapy illustrates how iatrogenic immunosuppression can unmask latent or subclinical infection [38]. The XSCID canine model has proven instrumental in dissecting the host-virus interaction, demonstrating that while XSCID keratinocytes possess functional pattern recognition receptors capable of responding to synthetic double-stranded DNA and RNA ligands, they fail to initiate an antiviral response upon CPV2 infection, suggesting the virus employs sophisticated immune evasion strategies at the very earliest stages of infection [33, 36]. This immunological subversion likely contributes to the high prevalence of persistent infections and the elevated risk of malignant transformation observed in immunodeficient populations.

Genotypic Diversity and Diagnostic Implications for Surveillance

The expanding genotypic diversity of CPV presents both opportunities and challenges for epidemiological surveillance. The development of a universal and quantitative PCR strategy capable of detecting all 23 known CPV types, with genotype-specific primers for the predominant CPV1 and CPV2, represents a significant methodological advance [2]. This approach enables not only prevalence estimation but also longitudinal monitoring of viral load in clinical cases, providing a quantitative biomarker for assessing treatment efficacy and disease progression. However, the continuous discovery of novel types, including CPV24 and CPV25 in 2022 and 2023, and CPV26 in 2024, indicates that our current understanding of CPV diversity remains incomplete [4, 26, 27]. The identification of six novel PV sequences from a single study of 27 pigmented plaques suggests that a substantial reservoir of uncharacterized CPV types exists, particularly within populations and lesion types that have not been subjected to intensive molecular scrutiny [29]. Furthermore, the detection of CPV DNA in atypical contexts such as Greyhound corns [20] and CTVT [42] underscores the need for broad-range molecular screening in any idiopathic proliferative or hyperkeratotic lesion.

Molecular Diagnostics and Detection Strategies for CPV

The accurate and timely detection of canine papillomavirus (CPV) is paramount for effective clinical management, epidemiological surveillance, and the elucidation of viral pathogenesis. Given the expanding diversity of CPV genotypes, now numbering at least 26 distinct types classified within the Lambdapapillomavirus, Chipapillomavirus, and Omegapapillomavirus genera [4, 25], diagnostic strategies must balance broad-spectrum detection capabilities with the specificity required for genotyping and viral load quantification. The diagnostic armamentarium for CPV has evolved considerably, encompassing classical histopathological examination, immunological detection of viral antigens, nucleic acid amplification techniques, in situ hybridization methodologies, and high-throughput sequencing platforms. Each modality offers distinct advantages and limitations, and their judicious application is dictated by the clinical context, sample type, and research objective.

Histopathological and Cytological Assessment as a Foundational Diagnostic Tool

Histopathological examination of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tissue sections remains a cornerstone of CPV diagnosis, providing rapid, cost-effective, and widely accessible preliminary evidence of viral infection [1, 49]. The characteristic cytopathic effects induced by CPV replication within keratinocytes are well-documented and include koilocytosis (perinuclear cytoplasmic clearing with nuclear pyknosis), the presence of basophilic intranuclear inclusion bodies, ballooning degeneration, cytoplasmic pallor, and the formation of prominent keratohyalin granules [10, 45]. These histological hallmarks are particularly pronounced in the stratum spinosum and stratum granulosum of the epidermis, where productive viral replication occurs [49]. In a systematic evaluation of 19 canine inverted papillomas, a composite histologic score exceeding 5 (based on the presence and severity of koilocytes, inclusion bodies, giant keratohyalin granules, cytoplasmic pallor, ballooning degeneration, and parakeratosis) was invariably associated with a confirmed viral etiology by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and molecular methods [45]. This underscores the diagnostic utility of meticulous histopathological evaluation.

However, histopathology alone is insufficient for definitive CPV diagnosis or genotyping. While the presence of viral cytopathic changes is highly suggestive, these alterations can be subtle or absent in early lesions, regressing papillomas, or malignant transformations where viral gene expression may be abortive [21]. Furthermore, histopathology cannot differentiate between CPV genotypes, a critical limitation given the varying oncogenic potentials associated with different types. For instance, CPV1 is classically linked to benign oral papillomatosis but has been documented in cases of malignant transformation to oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) [11, 23], while CPV2, CPV9, CPV15, and CPV16 have been increasingly associated with cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and pigmented viral plaques [8, 9, 13]. Therefore, histopathology serves as an essential screening and triage tool, directing the need for more specific molecular confirmatory testing.

Immunohistochemistry and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Viral Antigen Detection

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) targeting the major capsid protein L1 offers a direct means of visualizing viral antigen within lesional tissue, thereby confirming a productive infection [1, 10]. The presence of L1 antigen is highly correlated with the histological indicators of active viral replication, including intranuclear inclusions and koilocytes [10]. In a comprehensive study of 53 canine papillomas, L1 antigen was detected in 92% of cutaneous papillomas and 88% of oral papillomas, demonstrating robust sensitivity for benign, productive lesions [10]. IHC is particularly valuable for localizing viral antigen to specific cell layers within the epithelium, confirming the etiological role of CPV in a given lesion. However, IHC has notable limitations. Its sensitivity diminishes in lesions with low viral copy numbers or in malignant tumors where L1 expression is often downregulated or lost due to viral integration or abortive infection [21]. In a study of 88 canine oral lesions, while all viral papillomas were IHC-positive, only 3 of 33 (10%) SCCs harbored detectable CPV1 DNA by PCR, and none expressed viral RNA, suggesting that L1 protein is not a reliable marker for CPV involvement in malignant lesions [21]. Additionally, the availability of commercial anti-CPV L1 antibodies is limited, and cross-reactivity with other papillomavirus types can occur, though type-specific serological responses have been documented [24].

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) provides a complementary approach for detecting systemic antibody responses against CPV capsid proteins [1]. By expressing recombinant L1 proteins as glutathione S-transferase (GST) fusion antigens, type-specific ELISAs have been developed for CPV1 (COPV) and CPV3 [44]. These assays have revealed significant seroprevalence rates, with 21.9% of dogs in South Africa seropositive for CPV1 and 26.9% for CPV3, compared to 10.5% and 1.3%, respectively, in Swiss dogs [44]. ELISA is a powerful tool for large-scale epidemiological surveys, assessing population-level exposure and immune status. However, it cannot distinguish between past and current infection, and seroconversion may be delayed or absent in immunocompromised animals, which are precisely the population at highest risk for persistent and malignant CPV disease [12, 36].

Polymerase Chain Reaction: The Gold Standard for Molecular Detection and Genotyping

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has emerged as the preeminent molecular diagnostic modality for CPV, offering unparalleled sensitivity, specificity, and the capacity for genotyping and quantification [1, 2]. The design of PCR primers is critical, and two broad strategies have been employed: consensus (or pan-papillomavirus) primers targeting highly conserved regions within the L1 gene, and genotype-specific primers targeting unique sequences within the E6, E7, or L1 open reading frames [2, 8, 10].

Consensus PCR using primers such as FAP59/FAP64 or MY09/MY11, originally designed for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection, has been successfully adapted for CPV, enabling the amplification of a wide spectrum of known and novel CPV types [20, 47, 50]. These primers target a ~450 bp fragment within the L1 gene, which, upon sequencing, provides phylogenetic classification and identification of the CPV type [47, 50]. This approach has been instrumental in discovering novel CPV types, including CPV12, CPV18, CPV19, CPV24, CPV25, and CPV26 [4, 15, 16, 18, 26, 27]. However, consensus PCR may exhibit reduced sensitivity for highly divergent types or when viral DNA is present at low copy numbers, and it cannot differentiate between mixed infections without subsequent cloning or sequencing [15].

Genotype-specific PCR addresses these limitations by employing primers designed to amplify unique regions of individual CPV types. A landmark study by Zhou et al. (2025) developed a universal and quantitative PCR strategy incorporating both broad-range primers targeting conserved regions across all 23 known CPV genotypes and specific primers for the predominant types CPV1 and CPV2 [2]. This dual-primer approach significantly improved diagnostic specificity and sensitivity compared to traditional methods, as validated using synthetic plasmids and clinical samples [2]. The quantitative capability of this protocol, achieved through real-time PCR (qPCR), allows for the precise measurement of viral load in clinical specimens, providing a valuable tool for monitoring disease progression, assessing treatment efficacy, and understanding the natural history of infection [2]. For instance, monitoring viral load over time can distinguish between a transient, self-limiting infection and a persistent, potentially oncogenic one.

The application of PCR has been pivotal in elucidating the association between specific CPV genotypes and distinct clinical presentations. CPV1 is overwhelmingly dominant in oral papillomas, while CPV2 is more frequently associated with cutaneous endophytic papillomas and footpad lesions [10, 14, 24]. Co-infections with CPV1 and CPV2 are common, accounting for approximately 20% of infections in some studies [10]. Critically, PCR has been instrumental in identifying high-risk CPV genotypes. CPV16, for example, was first identified in a pigmented viral plaque that progressed to metastatic SCC, and subsequent analysis revealed viral genome integration into the host genome, a hallmark of high-risk HPV-induced carcinogenesis in humans [9, 19]. Similarly, CPV9, CPV15, and CPV16 have been detected in SCCs, highlighting their potential oncogenic role [8]. PCR detection of CPV17 in a primary corneal pigmented SCC further expands the spectrum of CPV-associated malignancies [32]. The ability to detect viral DNA in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues has enabled large-scale retrospective studies, demonstrating the presence of CPV DNA in a significant proportion of benign and malignant lesions [8, 21, 23].

Rolling Circle Amplification and In Situ Hybridization

Rolling circle amplification (RCA) is an isothermal nucleic acid amplification technique that specifically amplifies circular DNA templates, such as the episomal CPV genome [1, 48]. RCA offers several advantages over conventional PCR: it does not require thermal cycling, it is highly specific for circular DNA, and it can amplify the entire viral genome without prior knowledge of the sequence [48]. This makes RCA an excellent tool for discovering novel CPV types and for confirming the presence of episomal viral DNA, which is characteristic of productive, benign infections [48]. In a study of canine ocular papillomas, RCA confirmed that the CPV1 genome was present as a circular episome within cultured corneal cells [48]. However, RCA is less sensitive than PCR for detecting linearized or integrated viral DNA, which is often found in malignant lesions [9].

In situ hybridization (ISH) provides spatial localization of CPV DNA or RNA within tissue sections, offering a direct visual link between the virus and the lesional cells [1, 45]. Two primary ISH modalities are employed: chromogenic ISH (CISH) for DNA detection and RNAscope for RNA detection [45]. DNA-CISH using probes specific for CPV1 and CPV2 has been successfully used to localize viral DNA to the nuclei of keratinocytes in the suprabasal layers of inverted papillomas, confirming the viral etiology [37, 45]. RNA-ISH is particularly powerful as it detects actively transcribed viral genes, distinguishing between a latent infection (where viral DNA is present but not expressed) and a productive or abortive infection [45]. In a comparative study of 19 inverted papillomas, RNA-ISH showed excellent concordance with PCR results and provided additional insights into the phase of viral infection [45]. ISH is invaluable for understanding the pathogenesis of CPV, particularly in lesions where the role of the virus is uncertain, such as in SCCs where viral DNA may be present but RNA expression is absent, suggesting a bystander effect rather than a causal role [21].

Next-Generation Sequencing and Metagenomics

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) represents the most comprehensive and unbiased approach for CPV detection and characterization [1, 3, 46]. Unlike PCR, which requires prior knowledge of the target sequence, NGS can identify all viral nucleic acids present in a sample, including novel or divergent CPV types, co-infections, and even non-CPV pathogens [46]. This metagenomic approach has been instrumental in discovering new CPV types, such as CPV19, which was identified alongside CPV1 and CPV2 in a single oral papilloma by deep sequencing of virion-extracted DNA [15]. NGS also enables whole-genome sequencing, providing detailed information on viral genetic structure, recombination events, and mutations associated with oncogenesis [3, 9, 13]. For instance, whole-genome analysis of CPV9 strains from benign and malignant lesions revealed a 328 bp deletion in the E2 gene of the SCC-derived strain, suggesting a potential mechanism for malignant transformation [13]. Furthermore, NGS was used to characterize the first integration of CPV16 into the host genome, identifying multiple viral deletions, translocations, and host integration sites, a critical event in carcinogenesis [9]. In epidemiological studies, NGS has been used to characterize the complete genomes of CPV1 strains from the Brazilian Amazon, revealing high genetic identity with strains from other regions and demonstrating the utility of this technology for surveillance in ecologically complex areas [3]. The primary limitations of NGS are its high cost, requirement for specialized bioinformatics expertise, and relatively long turnaround time, which currently restrict its use to research and reference laboratories rather than routine clinical diagnostics.

Diagnostic Algorithm and Clinical Considerations

Given the diversity of CPV genotypes and their variable clinical outcomes, a tiered diagnostic approach is recommended. For a dog presenting with a typical exophytic papilloma, histopathological confirmation of viral cytopathic effects, combined with IHC for L1 antigen, is often sufficient for diagnosis [1, 10]. However, for atypical lesions (e.g., pigmented plaques, endophytic papillomas, or suspected malignant transformations), molecular testing is essential. Consensus PCR followed by sequencing is the most practical first-line molecular test, as it can detect a broad range of CPV types and identify novel ones [2, 20]. If a specific genotype is suspected (e.g., CPV1 in oral lesions or CPV16 in pigmented plaques), genotype-specific qPCR can provide rapid confirmation and viral load quantification [2]. For research purposes or when a comprehensive virological profile is required, NGS is the method of choice [3, 46]. The detection of CPV DNA in malignant lesions, particularly when accompanied by evidence of viral integration or E6/E7 expression, should raise suspicion for a causal role and prompt consideration of more aggressive clinical management [8, 9, 23]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes the importance of molecular diagnostics for emerging and re-emerging viral diseases, and the application of standardized PCR protocols for CPV surveillance aligns with international guidelines for infectious disease control.

Immunological Responses and Vaccine Development for CPV

The interplay between Canine Papillomavirus (CPV) and the host immune system is a complex, dynamic process that dictates the clinical trajectory from asymptomatic infection and spontaneous regression to persistent papillomatosis and, in severe cases, malignant transformation. Understanding these immunological mechanisms is not merely an academic exercise; it is the foundational prerequisite for rational vaccine design and the development of effective immunotherapeutics. The canine immune system, like that of humans, employs a multi-layered defense against PV infections, yet CPV has evolved sophisticated strategies to subvert these barriers, particularly within the keratinocyte, its primary target cell.

Innate Immune Evasion: The Keratinocyte as a Battleground

The initial encounter between CPV and the host occurs at the level of the basal keratinocyte. These cells are not passive targets; they are equipped with a repertoire of pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) capable of sensing viral nucleic acids and initiating an innate antiviral response. Studies have demonstrated that canine keratinocytes express mRNA for key cytosolic nucleic acid sensors, including melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5), retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I), and interferon-inducible gene 16 (IFI16), along with their adaptor molecules such as STING (stimulator of interferon genes) [33]. When stimulated with synthetic double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) mimics like poly(dA:dT) or double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) mimics like poly(I:C), these keratinocytes mount a robust response, upregulating the expression of type I interferons (IFN-β), pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α), and interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) [33, 36].

However, a critical finding reveals a profound immunological blind spot: CPV-2-infected keratinocytes fail to upregulate these same antiviral mediators [33]. This lack of recognition is not due to a global defect in the keratinocyte’s signaling capacity, as infected cells retain the ability to respond to synthetic ligands. Instead, it suggests that CPV-2, and likely other CPV types, actively shields its replicative intermediates from cellular sensors or actively suppresses the signaling cascade. This immune quiescence is a hallmark of papillomavirus biology, allowing the virus to establish a persistent infection without triggering immediate inflammatory destruction of the infected epithelium.

The molecular mechanisms of this subversion have been partially elucidated for CPV-2. The viral oncoproteins E6 and E7 are central to this process. Quinlan et al. demonstrated that CPV-2 E6 interferes with the constitutive expression of IFN-β and the ISG IFIT1, while both E6 and E7 cooperate to block the transcriptional upregulation of antiviral cytokines in response to dsDNA stimulation [12]. Furthermore, CPV-2 E7 uniquely abrogates signaling through the type I IFN receptor, effectively rendering the cell deaf to external interferon signals [12]. This dual-pronged attack, preventing both the production of and response to interferons, creates a highly permissive environment for viral replication. This is in stark contrast to the mechanisms observed in high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs), where the E6 protein targets p53 for degradation. CPV-2 E6 does not degrade p53 nor does it interfere with the upregulation of p53-regulated genes like p21 and Bax following UVB-induced DNA damage, suggesting that CPV-2 employs a p53-independent pathway for oncogenesis, a divergence with significant implications for therapeutic targeting [7].

Adaptive Immunity: The Determinant of Regression versus Persistence

While the innate response is largely evaded, the adaptive immune system, particularly cell-mediated immunity, is ultimately responsible for the spontaneous regression of CPV-induced papillomas, a phenomenon frequently observed in immunocompetent dogs [14, 51]. The histopathological hallmark of regressing papillomas is a dense lymphocytic infiltrate, predominantly composed of T lymphocytes. The critical role of T cells is underscored by the observation that dogs with compromised immune systems, whether due to genetic defects like X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (XSCID), iatrogenic immunosuppression from corticosteroids or cyclosporine, or advanced age, are predisposed to severe, persistent, and often multiple CPV infections that can progress to malignancy [1, 5, 23, 38].

The systematic review by Cano-Verdugo et al. highlighted that lesion development is associated with lower CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocyte counts, reinforcing the concept that a robust T-cell response is essential for viral clearance [5]. The spontaneous regression of CPV-2-related footpad papillomatosis following a biopsy in a non-immunocompromised dog further illustrates that even a minor inflammatory insult can tip the balance from viral persistence towards immune-mediated resolution [14]. The humoral immune response, while present, appears to be less critical for clearance. Antibodies against the L1 capsid protein are generated during infection and can be detected by ELISA, providing a marker of exposure and a tool for seroepidemiological studies [44]. However, these antibodies are largely type-specific and do not confer cross-protection against other CPV genotypes, a major hurdle for vaccine development [24]. The detection of CPV-specific antibodies in a significant proportion of dogs from both Switzerland and South Africa suggests that subclinical infections are common, with the virus circulating widely within the canine population [44].

Vaccine Development: Navigating a Landscape of Genotypic Diversity

The development of an effective, commercially available CPV vaccine remains an elusive goal, despite decades of research and a clear clinical need [1]. The primary challenge is the remarkable genetic diversity of CPV, with over 25 distinct types now recognized, classified into multiple genera including Lambdapapillomavirus, Chipapillomavirus, Tauppapillomavirus, and the recently described Omegapapillomavirus [4, 25]. This diversity necessitates a vaccine that can provide broad, cross-protective immunity, a feat that has proven difficult for HPV vaccines, which are largely type-specific.

Several vaccine platforms have been explored in experimental settings, each with its own set of advantages and limitations:

1. Inactivated and Live-Attenuated Vaccines: Traditional approaches using whole virus, either killed or weakened, have been investigated. While they can induce an immune response, concerns regarding safety (reversion to virulence for live vaccines) and the difficulty of producing high-titer virus in culture have limited their advancement.

2. Autogenous Vaccines (Autovaccines): A practical, albeit individualized, approach involves creating a vaccine from the dog’s own papilloma tissue. This method has been used clinically, often in conjunction with immunostimulants like Zylexis™, with reported remission periods of 21-30 days [17]. While autovaccines are tailored to the specific CPV type(s) present in the lesion, they lack standardization, are not scalable for commercial production, and their efficacy has not been rigorously validated in controlled trials.

3. Recombinant Protein-Based Vaccines: This strategy focuses on expressing the major capsid protein L1, which self-assembles into virus-like particles (VLPs). VLPs are highly immunogenic, presenting a dense array of conformational epitopes that mimic the native virus without containing any infectious genetic material. The success of HPV VLP vaccines (e.g., Gardasil, Cervarix) provides a strong proof-of-concept for this approach. For CPV, recombinant L1 proteins have been shown to induce neutralizing antibodies in animal models. However, the challenge remains that these antibodies are largely type-specific. A multivalent VLP vaccine incorporating L1 proteins from the most clinically relevant and oncogenic CPV types (e.g., CPV1, CPV2, CPV16) would be necessary to achieve broad coverage [1, 8, 9].

4. DNA-Based Vaccines: Plasmid DNA encoding CPV antigens, such as L1 or E6/E7, can be administered to induce both humoral and cellular immune responses. This platform offers advantages in terms of stability, ease of production, and the ability to target multiple antigens. DNA vaccines can be engineered to enhance immunogenicity, for example, by fusing the antigen to molecules that target dendritic cells. While promising in experimental settings, DNA vaccines for CPV have not yet progressed to commercial availability [1].

The path forward for CPV vaccine development is inextricably linked to a deeper understanding of the virus’s biology and the host’s immune response. The discovery that CPV16 integrates into the host genome, a hallmark of high-risk HPVs, marks it as a prime target for a vaccine aimed at preventing malignant transformation [9]. Similarly, the identification of CPV9, CPV15, and CPV16 in squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) underscores the need to include these high-risk genotypes in any prophylactic vaccine formulation [8]. Furthermore, the observation that CPV1, traditionally considered a low-risk type, can undergo malignant transformation in certain contexts, particularly in immunocompromised hosts, suggests that a truly comprehensive vaccine may need to be broadly protective [11, 23]. The development of such a vaccine would represent a monumental step forward in canine health, aligning with the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) principles of preventive veterinary medicine and potentially providing a powerful comparative model for human HPV vaccine research.

Current Therapeutic Approaches and Prognostic Management of CPV

The clinical management of canine papillomavirus (CPV) infections occupies a complex therapeutic landscape, one that is defined by a fundamental paradox: the majority of CPV-induced lesions are self-limiting and undergo spontaneous regression, yet a subset of infections, particularly those involving high-risk genotypes or occurring in immunocompromised hosts, carry the potential for malignant transformation, therapeutic resistance, and significant morbidity. Consequently, the therapeutic approach must be stratified not only by lesion type, anatomical location, and genotype but also by the immunological status of the patient. This section provides an exhaustive analysis of current therapeutic modalities, their mechanistic underpinnings, evidence bases, and limitations, alongside a comprehensive framework for prognostic stratification and long-term management.

Spontaneous Regression and the Immunological Basis of Observation

Before any intervention is considered, it is imperative to recognize that the natural history of CPV infection is overwhelmingly one of immune-mediated resolution. The classical canine oral papillomatosis caused by CPV1 (Lambdapapillomavirus 2) typically regresses within 4–8 weeks of lesion appearance, a process driven by cell-mediated immunity, specifically CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocyte responses [5, 10]. This phenomenon is so reliable that many clinicians advocate for a period of watchful waiting in immunocompetent patients with uncomplicated, non-obstructive papillomas. The spontaneous regression of CPV2-related footpad papillomatosis has been documented following biopsy alone, as reported in a 9-year-old French Bulldog where lesions resolved within two weeks of tissue sampling without any specific antiviral therapy [14]. Similarly, a large retrospective series of 44 cases of canine pedal papillomas found that 25 lesions resolved within three weeks after biopsy collection, and 15 of 21 dogs receiving no additional treatment experienced complete resolution [51]. These observations underscore the potent role of iatrogenic immune stimulation, even the trauma of biopsy, in triggering an effective antiviral response. However, this favorable prognosis is contingent upon host immunocompetence. Dogs with underlying immunosuppression, whether due to advanced age, concurrent disease, or iatrogenic causes such as chronic corticosteroid or cyclosporine administration, are at markedly increased risk for persistent, progressive, and disseminated disease [5, 38, 55]. In such patients, active therapeutic intervention is not merely advisable but often necessary to prevent malignant progression.

Surgical Excision and Physical Ablation

Surgical excision remains the most direct and definitive therapeutic modality for solitary or accessible CPV lesions, particularly when there is diagnostic uncertainty, cosmetic concern, or functional impairment. Complete surgical removal with clean margins is curative for benign papillomas and is the treatment of choice for lesions that have undergone malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) [11, 32, 57]. In the context of corneal pigmented squamous cell carcinoma associated with CPV17, superficial keratectomy achieved initial tumor removal, though incomplete excision led to recurrence at 2 years and 9 months post-operatively, necessitating repeat surgery with adjunctive strontium-90 plesiotherapy [32]. This case illustrates a critical principle: surgical excision must be complete, and margins must be histologically confirmed, as CPV-associated SCCs are locally invasive and carry a risk of recurrence. For pedal papillomas, surgical biopsy alone often serves as both diagnostic and therapeutic, with many lesions regressing post-procedure [51]. Cryosurgery, laser ablation, and electrosurgery are alternative physical modalities that can be employed for superficial or multiple lesions, though they lack the advantage of providing a complete tissue specimen for histopathological and molecular analysis. The primary limitation of surgical approaches is their impracticality for disseminated or multifocal disease, such as extensive oral papillomatosis or generalized pigmented viral plaques, where surgical morbidity would be prohibitive.

Electrochemotherapy: A Synergistic Approach for Refractory Lesions

Electrochemotherapy (ECT) represents a sophisticated, evidence-based therapeutic advancement for CPV-associated lesions that are refractory to conventional management. This modality combines the administration of a chemotherapeutic agent, typically bleomycin or cisplatin, with the application of localized, high-voltage electric pulses that transiently permeabilize cell membranes, facilitating intracellular drug accumulation at concentrations far exceeding those achievable by systemic administration alone. The utility of ECT in veterinary CPV management was compellingly demonstrated in a 2-year-old Labrador Retriever with multiple pruritic perianal viral epidermal plaques and squamous cell carcinomas in situ (SCCis) caused by CPV1 [52]. Following a single session of ECT, all lesions underwent complete regression with excellent cosmetic and functional outcomes, and no recurrence was reported during the follow-up period. The mechanistic advantage of ECT in this context is twofold: first, it achieves potent local cytotoxicity against virally transformed keratinocytes, and second, the electroporation-induced cell death releases viral and tumor antigens in a highly immunogenic context, potentially priming a systemic adaptive immune response against CPV-infected cells. ECT is particularly valuable for lesions in anatomical sites where surgical excision would be disfiguring or functionally compromising, such as the perianal region, oral cavity, or distal extremities. Its principal limitations include the need for specialized equipment, general anesthesia, and expertise in electroporation protocols, which may restrict its availability to referral veterinary oncology centers.

Topical and Intralesional Pharmacotherapy

A diverse array of topical and intralesional agents has been employed for CPV management, with variable evidence supporting their efficacy. Topical molecular iodine at a concentration of 300 ppm applied twice daily for 90 seconds per application achieved complete regression of an oral papilloma in a 2-year-old dog within four weeks, with no recurrence at 18 months [56]. The virucidal mechanism of molecular iodine involves direct oxidation and denaturation of viral capsid proteins and nucleic acids, and its efficacy against papillomaviruses has been demonstrated in both bovine and human models. This non-invasive, cost-effective approach offers a compelling alternative for solitary oral lesions, though its utility for multiple or cutaneous lesions requires further investigation. Topical peginterferon alfa-2a drops were employed as adjunctive therapy following keratectomy for corneal CPV17-associated SCC, and while recurrence eventually occurred, the interferon likely contributed to initial disease control [32]. Interferons exert antiviral effects through the induction of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) that inhibit viral replication and promote apoptosis of infected cells. However, the efficacy of topical interferon is limited by poor corneal penetration and the need for frequent administration.

The topical cream PAPILEND™, in combination with the immunomodulator Zylexis™ (a parapoxvirus-based immune stimulant) and a nutritional premix containing vitamin E, zinc, selenium, and copper, was evaluated in a comparative treatment study of canine oral papillomatosis [17]. Dogs receiving this combination experienced lesion remission within 15–30 days, which was comparable to or slightly faster than the 21–30 days observed in dogs receiving autologous vaccination plus Zylexis™ [17]. The inclusion of zinc and selenium is mechanistically rational, as these micronutrients are essential for optimal T-cell function and antiviral immunity. Azithromycin, a macrolide antibiotic with immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties, has been used empirically for CPV management, and it was the most commonly reported treatment initiated after biopsy in a large retrospective series of pedal papillomas [51]. However, its antiviral efficacy against papillomaviruses is not well-established, and its use should be considered adjunctive rather than primary therapy.

Systemic Immunomodulation and Antiviral Strategies

For dogs with persistent, recurrent, or disseminated CPV disease, particularly those with documented immunosuppression, systemic immunomodulation is a cornerstone of management. Interferon-α (IFN-α) has been used off-label for canine papillomatosis, with reported success in some cases, though a case of CPV1-induced oral papilloma that progressed to SCC despite treatment with interferon α-2b highlights the limitations of this approach in aggressive disease [11]. The rationale for interferon therapy is sound: type I interferons are critical for antiviral defense, and CPV oncoproteins, particularly CPV2 E6 and E7, have been shown to abrogate constitutive and induced expression of IFN-β and ISGs in canine keratinocytes [12]. Exogenous interferon administration may partially overcome this viral immune evasion, though its efficacy is likely dependent on the viral genotype and the degree of host immunosuppression.

Immunostimulants such as Zylexis™ (inactivated parapoxvirus ovis) are designed to activate innate immune pathways, including Toll-like receptors and natural killer cells, thereby creating an antiviral milieu that may facilitate CPV clearance. The combination of autologous vaccination (preparation of an inactivated vaccine from the patient’s own papilloma tissue) with Zylexis™ resulted in lesion remission within 21–30 days in one study [17]. Autologous vaccination leverages the principle of therapeutic immunization, presenting the patient’s immune system with a concentrated dose of its own viral antigens in an immunogenic context. While this approach has historical precedent and anecdotal support, it lacks rigorous controlled trials and carries theoretical risks of autoimmunity or incomplete viral inactivation. Corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive drugs are strictly contraindicated in CPV management, as they are well-documented to precipitate severe, progressive disease and malignant transformation [38, 55].

Radiation Therapy for Refractory and Malignant Disease

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has emerged as a definitive treatment option for CPV-associated lesions that are refractory to conventional therapy or have undergone malignant transformation. A landmark case report described a 3-year-old Border Collie with CPV1-positive oral papillomas that progressed to SCC despite standard-of-care interventions [57]. The malignant tumors were incompletely excised, and the patient subsequently received definitive EBRT: 45 Gy delivered in 15 fractions of 3 Gy to the tumor bed, with the remaining oral cavity receiving 27 Gy (1.8 Gy × 15 fractions) to address disseminated papillomatosis. Despite a temporary treatment delay due to grade 3 mucositis, the patient achieved complete remission and remained disease-free at 10 months post-radiotherapy, with no recurrence reported after more than one year [57]. The dual-dose strategy employed in this case is noteworthy: a higher dose to gross disease for cytoreduction and a lower, prophylactic dose to subclinical mucosal disease to prevent recurrence. Radiation therapy is particularly valuable for lesions in anatomically complex sites where surgical excision with clean margins is impossible, such as the caudal oral cavity, pharynx, or larynx. Its principal limitations include the need for specialized equipment, multiple anesthetic episodes, and the risk of acute and late radiation toxicities, including mucositis, xerostomia, osteoradionecrosis, and secondary tumor induction.

Prognostic Stratification and Long-Term Surveillance

The prognosis for a dog with CPV infection is not uniform and must be individualized based on a constellation of virologic, host, and lesion-specific factors. The most critical determinant of outcome is the CPV genotype. While CPV1 is traditionally considered a low-risk type associated with self-limiting oral papillomatosis, mounting evidence challenges this assumption. A series of seven dogs with CPV1-associated papillomas that underwent malignant transformation to carcinoma in situ and SCC, coupled with the detection of p53 and p16 dysregulation in transformed cells, suggests that CPV1 may possess greater oncogenic potential than previously appreciated, particularly in the context of altered host immunity or environmental co-factors such as UV radiation [23]. CPV2, a cutaneous type within the Chi and Xi genera, is unequivocally associated with malignant progression, especially in immunodeficient dogs, including those with X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (XSCID) [7, 12, 24]. CPV2 E6 does not degrade p53 but instead abrogates type I and type III interferon responses, while CPV2 E7 binds and degrades the retinoblastoma protein (pRb) through a unique C-terminal domain rather than the canonical LXCXE motif [7, 12, 34]. These mechanistic differences likely underpin its enhanced pathogenicity. CPV16, a Chipapillomavirus, has been demonstrated to integrate into the host genome, a hallmark of high-risk HPV types in humans, and was detected in metastatic SCC, strongly suggesting that CPV16 is a high-risk canine papillomavirus [9]. CPV9 and CPV15 have also been detected in SCCs, further expanding the roster of potentially oncogenic genotypes [8, 13].

Host factors are equally important. Immunosuppression, whether congenital (e.g., XSCID), acquired (e.g., canine distemper virus, leishmaniasis, ehrlichiosis), or iatrogenic (e.g., corticosteroids, cyclosporine, chemotherapy), is the single most powerful predictor of persistent, progressive, and malignant CPV disease [5, 38, 55]. Age is a relevant but less absolute factor; while young dogs are most commonly affected by CPV1 oral papillomatosis, malignant transformation has been documented in dogs as young as 3 years [11]. Breed predispositions are emerging, with Pug dogs being overrepresented for pigmented viral plaques associated with CPV4, CPV12, CPV18, and CPV24 [16, 27, 38, 39]. Labrador Retrievers appear frequently in case series of both benign and malignant CPV disease [5, 11]. Lesion characteristics guide prognosis: solitary, exophytic papillomas in immunocompetent dogs carry an excellent prognosis, whereas multiple, pigmented, or inverted plaques, particularly those on the ventrum or in sun-exposed areas, warrant closer surveillance due to their association with ChiPV types and potential for malignant progression [27, 45, 53, 54]. The presence of koilocytes, intranuclear inclusion bodies, and giant keratohyalin granules on histopathology is strongly correlated with active viral replication and a favorable immune response, whereas loss of these features, increased nuclear atypia, and invasion through the basement membrane signal malignant transformation [10, 45, 49].

Long-term surveillance is mandatory for any dog with a history of CPV infection, particularly those with high-risk genotypes, immunosuppression, or incompletely excised lesions. A minimum follow-up protocol should include monthly recheck examinations for the first three months post-treatment, then quarterly for one year, and semi-annually thereafter. Any new or changing lesion should be biopsied and subjected to histopathological evaluation and CPV genotyping by PCR [2, 8, 45]. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays, such as those developed by Zhou et al. (2025), offer the additional capability of monitoring viral load over time, providing a molecular correlate of treatment response and early detection of reactivation [2]. For dogs with pigmented viral plaques, whole-body skin examination with photographic documentation at each visit is recommended, as new plaques can develop in anatomically distant sites. Owners should be educated to monitor for signs of malignant transformation, including rapid growth, ulceration, bleeding, pruritus, or pain. In cases where malignant transformation is confirmed, staging via regional lymph node aspiration, thoracic radiography or computed tomography, and hematologic and biochemical profiling is essential to guide further therapy and establish prognosis. The integration of molecular diagnostics, advanced therapeutics, and rigorous surveillance protocols is essential for optimizing outcomes in this increasingly recognized and clinically significant viral disease of dogs.

References

[1] Feng Y, Wang K, Zhou D, Yuan Y, Chen Y, Wang J, et al.. Canine papillomavirus: status of diagnostic methods and vaccine innovations. Virology Journal. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-025-02753-3

[2] Zhou D, Wang K, Yuan Y, Li Y, Schlegel R, Wang A, et al.. A Universal and Quantitative PCR Strategy for Detection and Epidemiologic Analysis of Canine Papillomavirus (CPV). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26094391

[3] Sousa JCdM, Lins A, Souza FDA, Manoel HO, Araújo CSd, Tomaya LYC, et al.. Unveiling the Genetic Landscape of Canine Papillomavirus in the Brazilian Amazon. Microorganisms. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13081811

[4] Munday J, Bond SD, Piripi S, Soulsby SJ, Knox MA. Canis Familiaris Papillomavirus Type 26: A Novel Papillomavirus of Dogs and the First Canine Papillomavirus within the Omegapapillomavirus Genus. Viruses. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v16040595

[5] Cano-Verdugo G, Verdugo-Lizárraga GG, Gámez-Sánchez DE. Generalities in canine papillomavirus: systematic review of case reports. Veterinaria México OA. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/fmvz.24486760e.2023.1160

[6] Liu Y, Xie L, Zhou Y, Zhou L, Bi J, Zheng M, et al.. Human papillomavirus in canine serum: evidence from a Chinese study. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1511289

[7] Quinlan S, May S, Weeks R, Yuan H, Luff J. Canine Papillomavirus 2 E6 Does Not Interfere With UVB-Induced Upregulation of p53 and p53-Regulated Genes. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.570982

[8] Chang C, Chen W, Haga T, Yamashita N, Lee C, Tsuzuki M, et al.. The Detection and Association of Canine Papillomavirus with Benign and Malignant Skin Lesions in Dogs. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12020170

[9] Luff J, Mader M, Rowland P, Britton M, Fass JN, Yuan H. Viral genome integration of canine papillomavirus 16. Papillomavirus Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pvr.2019.02.002

[10] Lange C, Jennings S, Diallo A, Lyons J. Canine papillomavirus types 1 and 2 in classical papillomas: High abundance, different morphological associations and frequent co-infections.. The Veterinary Journal. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TVJL.2019.05.016

[11] Ibarra AMR, Legendre L, Munday J. Malignant Transformation of a Canine Papillomavirus Type 1-Induced Persistent Oral Papilloma in a 3-Year-Old Dog. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0898756418774575

[12] Quinlan S, May S, Weeks R, Yuan H, Luff J. Abrogation of Constitutive and Induced Type I and Type III Interferons and Interferon-Stimulated Genes in Keratinocytes by Canine Papillomavirus 2 E6 and E7. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12060677

[13] Chang C, Yamashita-Kawanishi N, Tomizawa S, Liu I, Chen W, Chang Y, et al.. Whole Genomic Analysis and Comparison of Two Canine Papillomavirus Type 9 Strains in Malignant and Benign Skin Lesions. Viruses. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12070736

[14] Iyori K, Inai K, Shimakura H, Haga T, Shimoura H, Imanishi I, et al.. Spontaneous regression of canine papillomavirus type 2-related papillomatosis on footpads in a dog. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.19-0136

[15] Tisza M, Yuan H, Schlegel R, Buck C. Genomic Sequence of Canine Papillomavirus 19. Genome Announcements. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.01380-16

[16] Lange C, Diallo A, Zewe CM, Ferrer L. Novel canine papillomavirus type 18 found in pigmented plaques. Papillomavirus Research. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pvr.2016.08.001

[17] Kant S, Orta YS, Kale M, Yıldırım Y, Ozmen O, Atlı K, et al.. Virological and Pathological Diagnosis of Canine Oral Papillomavirus in Dogs and Evaluation of Treatment Applications. Agricultural Science Digest - A Research Journal. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.df-526

[18] Zhou D, Luff J, Paul S, Alkhilaiwi F, Usuda Y, Wang N, et al.. Complete Genome Sequence of Canine Papillomavirus Virus Type 12. Genome Announcements. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00294-15

[19] Luff J, Mader M, Britton M, Fass JN, Rowland P, Orr C, et al.. Complete Genome Sequence of Canine Papillomavirus Type 16. Genome Announcements. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00404-15

[20] Anis E, Frank L, Francisco R, Kania S. Identification of canine papillomavirus by PCR in Greyhound dogs. PeerJ. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2744

[21] Porcellato I, Brachelente C, Guelfi G, Reginato A, Sforna M, Bongiovanni L, et al.. A Retrospective Investigation on Canine Papillomavirus 1 (CPV1) in Oral Oncogenesis Reveals Dogs Are Not a Suitable Animal Model for High-Risk HPV-Induced Oral Cancer. PLoS ONE. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112833

[22] Zhou D, Luff J, Usuda Y, Affolter V, Moore P, Schlegel R, et al.. Complete Genome Sequence of Canine Papillomavirus Type 11. Genome Announcements. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.00529-14

[23] Thaiwong T, Sledge D, Wise A, Olstad K, Maes R, Kiupel M. Malignant transformation of canine oral papillomavirus (CPV1)-associated papillomas in dogs: An emerging concern?. Papillomavirus Research. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pvr.2018.10.007

[24] Yuan H, Ghim S, Newsome J, Apolinario T, Olcese VA, Martin M, et al.. An epidermotropic canine papillomavirus with malignant potential contains an E5 gene and establishes a unique genus.. Virology. 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VIROL.2006.08.029

[25] Medeiros-Fonseca B, Faustino-Rocha A, Medeiros R, Oliveira PA, Costa RMGd. Canine and feline papillomaviruses: an update. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1174673

[26] Munday J, Gedye K, Knox M, Robinson L, Lin X. Genomic Characterization of Canis Familiaris Papillomavirus Type 25, a Novel Papillomavirus Associated with a Viral Plaque from the Pinna of a Dog. Animals. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111859

[27] Munday J, Gedye K, Knox M, Ravens PA, Lin X. Genomic Characterisation of Canis Familiaris Papillomavirus Type 24, a Novel Papillomavirus Associated with Extensive Pigmented Plaque Formation in a Pug Dog. Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14112357

[28] Cruz-Gregorio A, Aranda-Rivera AK, Pedraza-Chaverri J. Pathological Similarities in the Development of Papillomavirus-Associated Cancer in Humans, Dogs, and Cats. Animals. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12182390

[29] Luff J, Affolter V, Yeargan BV, Moore P. Detection of six novel papillomavirus sequences within canine pigmented plaques. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1040638712443360

[30] Yhee J, Kwon B, Kim J, Yu C, Im K, Lee S, et al.. Characterization of canine oral papillomavirus by histopathological and genetic analysis in Korea. Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2010.11.1.21

[31] Delius H, Ranst MV, Jenson A, Hausen Hz, Sundberg J. Canine oral papillomavirus genomic sequence: a unique 1.5-kb intervening sequence between the E2 and L2 open reading frames.. Virology. 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/VIRO.1994.1552

[32] Mather H, McCowan C, Munday J, Stanley R. Primary corneal pigmented squamous cell carcinoma with concurrent canine papillomavirus type 17 infection in a dog. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2025.2456238

[33] Luff J, Yuan H, Suter M, Müller E, Schlegel R, Moore P. Canine keratinocytes upregulate type I interferons and proinflammatory cytokines in response to poly(dA:dT) but not to canine papillomavirus. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology. 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2013.02.001

[34] Wang J, Zhou D, Prabhu A, Schlegel R, Yuan H. The Canine Papillomavirus and Gamma HPV E7 Proteins Use an Alternative Domain to Bind and Destabilize the Retinoblastoma Protein. PLoS Pathogens. 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001089

[35] Karakurt E, Coskun N, Aydın U, Dağ S, Beytut E, Ataseven V, et al.. Cell proliferation and apoptosis in canine oral papillomatosis. Veterinary Research Forum. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30466/vrf.2023.1996086.3818

[36] Luff J, Yuan H, Kennedy D, Schlegel R, Felsburg P, Moore P. Keratinocyte Antiviral Response to Poly(dA:dT) Stimulation and Papillomavirus Infection in a Canine Model of X-Linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency. PLoS ONE. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102033

[37] Resendes A, Trainor K, Bera M, Cheng RCF, Luff J. Claw bed inverted squamous papilloma associated with canine papillomavirus type 2 in a dog.. Veterinary dermatology (Print). 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.13208

[38] Fukunaga T, Fukunaga K, Shimakura H, Haga T, Esumi M, Iyori K. A pug with viral pigmented plaques suspected to be associated with canine papillomavirus type12 during long-term treatment with systemic corticosteroid. The Japanese Journal of Veterinary Dermatology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2736/jjvd.27.221

[39] Yu M, Chambers J, Tsuzuki M, Yamashita N, Ushigusa T, Haga T, et al.. Pigmented viral plaque and basal cell tumor associated with canine papillomavirus infection in Pug dogs. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.19-0384

[40] Rushtlion V, Boyack I, Berlied A, Peterson C. Papillomavirus is not detected in benign neoplasms of the canine Meibomian gland despite evidence of HPV-mediated tumorigenesis in the human Meibomian gland. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2026.1812954

[41] Carvalho JPd, Carrilho M, Anjos DDd, Hernandez CD, Sichero L, Dagli M. Unraveling the Risk Factors and Etiology of the Canine Oral Mucosal Melanoma: Results of an Epidemiological Questionnaire, Oral Microbiome Analysis and Investigation of Papillomavirus Infection. Cancers. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14143397

[42] Ayala-Díaz S, Jiménez-Lima R, Ramírez-Alcántara KM, Lizano M, Castro-Muñoz LJ, Reyes-Hernández DO, et al.. Presence of Papillomavirus DNA sequences in the canine transmissible venereal tumor (CTVT). PeerJ. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7962

[43] Schaefer EAF, Chu S, Pearce J, Bryan J, Flesner B. Papillomavirus DNA not detected in canine lobular orbital adenoma and normal conjunctival tissue. BMC Veterinary Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1971-0

[44] Lange C, Tobler K, Favrot C, Müller M, Nöthling J, Ackermann M. Detection of Antibodies against Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis-Associated Canine Papillomavirus 3 in Sera of Dogs from Europe and Africa by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/CVI.00346-08

[45] Orlandi M, Mazzei M, Vascellari M, Melchiotti E, Zanardello C, Verin R, et al.. Localization and genotyping of canine papillomavirus in canine inverted papillomas. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10406387211035799

[46] Bhatta T, Chamings A, Vibin J, Alexandersen S. Detection and characterisation of canine astrovirus, canine parvovirus and canine papillomavirus in puppies using next generation sequencing. Scientific Reports. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41045-z

[47] Alcântara BK, Alfieri A, Rodrigues WB, Otonel RA, Lunardi M, Headley SA, et al.. Identification of canine papillomavirus type 1 (CPV1) DNA in dogs with cutaneous papillomatosis1. . 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-736x2014001200013

[48] Zhou D, Wang A, Maxwell S, Schlegel R, Yuan H. Long-Term Culture of Canine Ocular Cells That Maintain Canine Papillomaviruses. Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14122675

[49] Tekelioglu BK. Electron microscopy and histopathological examination of canine papilomavirus. Journal of Istanbul Veterinary Sciences. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30704/http-www-jivs-net.1106150

[50] Tanabe C, Kano R, Nagata M, Nakamura Y, Watanabe S, Hasegawa A. Molecular characteristics of cutaneous papillomavirus from the canine pigmented epidermal nevus.. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/JVMS.62.1189

[51] Gould A, Coyner K, Trimmer A, Tater K, Rishniw M. Canine pedal papilloma identification and management: a retrospective series of 44 cases.. Veterinary dermatology (Print). 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12999

[52] Boncea AM, Cristea A, Ramsauer A, Gal C, Tăulescu M. Successful treatment of perianal canine papillomavirus type‐1‐associated viral epidermal plaques and squamous cell carcinoma in situ by electrochemotherapy. Veterinary Record Case Reports. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/vrc2.971

[53] Munday J, Howell N, Fairley R. Solitary pedunculated multicystic viral plaque associated with canine papillomavirus 18 in a British Bulldog. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10406387211073927

[54] Orbell HL, Munday J, Orbell G, Griffin C. Development of multiple cutaneous and follicular neoplasms associated with canine papillomavirus type 3 in a dog.. Veterinary dermatology (Print). 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12872

[55] Ordoñez R, Guzman J, Dacak D, Gonzalez R. CANINE CUTANEOUS HORN ALLEGEDLY ASSOCIATED WITH PAPILLOMAVIRUS: CASE REPORT. . 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18004/compend.cienc.vet.2019.09.02.45-48

[56] Moskowitz M. Treatment of a Canine Oral Papilloma With Topical Molecular Iodine: A Case Report With Implications for Antiviral Therapy in Humans. Cureus. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.94049

[57] Szczepanek A, Bertran J, Shiomitsu K, Thorsen L, Gutti J, Santoro D, et al.. Successful definitive radiation treatment of refractory canine oral papillomatosis.. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.13383