Feline Herpesvirus 1

Overview and Taxonomy of Feline Herpesvirus 1

Feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV‑1) is the etiological agent of feline viral rhinotracheitis (FVR), a ubiquitous and highly contagious disease of domestic cats and wild felids worldwide. As the single most important viral cause of upper respiratory tract disease and ocular pathology in felines, FHV‑1 is responsible for approximately 50 % of all diagnosed viral upper respiratory infections in cats, a figure that underscores its profound clinical and economic significance [1, 5, 8]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes FHV‑1 as a pathogen of major concern in feline medicine, and it is classified as a notifiable agent in several jurisdictions due to its impact on animal health and welfare, particularly in multi-cat environments such as shelters, breeding catteries, and zoological collections. Although FHV‑1 is not zoonotic and poses no direct threat to human public health, its role as a model for understanding alphaherpesvirus pathogenesis, including latency, reactivation, and immune evasion, renders it a pathogen of considerable comparative virological interest [21, 25].

Taxonomic Classification and Phylogenetic Position

FHV‑1 belongs to the family Herpesviridae, subfamily Alphaherpesvirinae, genus Varicellovirus. This taxonomic placement aligns it with several other economically and medically important herpesviruses, including bovine herpesvirus 1 (BoHV‑1), pseudorabies virus (PRV), and equine herpesvirus 1 (EHV‑1) [9, 23]. Within the Varicellovirus genus, FHV‑1 is designated as Felid alphaherpesvirus 1 under the current International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) classification. The virus is highly host‑restricted, with natural infection occurring primarily in members of the family Felidae, including domestic cats (Felis catus), lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other wild felids [11, 15]. However, recent evidence has demonstrated that FHV‑1 can cross species barriers; Shi et al. (2022) reported the first detection of FHV‑1 in chinchillas (Chinchilla lanigera), with a 3.08 % prevalence rate in a Chinese breeding farm, suggesting that chinchillas may serve as temporary reservoirs or spillover hosts [14]. This finding challenges the long‑held notion of strict host specificity among alphaherpesviruses and has implications for the management of multi‑species exotic animal collections.

Phylogenomic analyses have significantly advanced our understanding of FHV‑1 population structure. Lewin et al. (2018) sequenced 26 FHV‑1 isolates from cats in United States animal shelters and, combined with 27 previously sequenced genomes, identified four major phylogeographic clades that largely correspond to geographical collection sites [23]. The overall interstrain genetic distance among all available FHV‑1 isolates was remarkably low at 0.093 %, indicating a highly conserved genome. This limited genetic diversity contrasts with the substantial genomic variability observed in other alphaherpesviruses such as herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV‑1) or varicella‑zoster virus (VZV). Nevertheless, recombination analysis provided compelling evidence for interclade recombination events, demonstrating that co‑infection with distinct FHV‑1 strains can occur in naturally infected cats, leading to genomic exchange [23]. These recombinational events may have implications for the emergence of strains with altered virulence, antigenicity, or tropism, and underscore the need for continued genomic surveillance.

Virion Structure and Genome Organization

The FHV‑1 virion exhibits the classical alphaherpesvirus architecture: an icosahedral capsid approximately 100–110 nm in diameter, surrounded by a proteinaceous tegument layer and an outer lipid envelope studded with viral glycoprotein spikes [9, 17]. The envelope glycoproteins, including glycoprotein B (gB), gC, gD, gE, gG, gH, gI, gK, gL, and gM, mediate critical steps in the viral life cycle, including host cell attachment, entry, cell‑to‑cell spread, and immune evasion [4, 11]. Among these, gB is the most conserved glycoprotein across the herpesvirus family and is essential for viral fusion with host cell membranes. Liu et al. (2024) demonstrated that gB serves as a viable target for novel antiviral interventions, showing that natural compounds such as saikosaponin B2, punicalin, and punicalagin bind gB with high affinity and block early viral entry at non‑cytotoxic concentrations [4].

The FHV‑1 genome is a linear, double‑stranded DNA molecule of approximately 134 kbp, organized into a unique long (UL) and a unique short (US) region, each flanked by inverted repeat sequences. This genomic architecture is typical of the Varicellovirus genus and permits the generation of two isomeric forms of the genome. The genome encodes at least 74 open reading frames (ORFs), including genes involved in DNA replication, nucleotide metabolism (e.g., thymidine kinase, TK; ribonucleotide reductase), capsid assembly, tegumentation, envelope acquisition, and immune modulation [3, 7, 8, 20]. Of particular note is the presence of several virulence‑associated genes: the US3 gene encoding a serine/threonine protein kinase that potently inhibits type I interferon signaling by binding the IRF association domain (IAD) of interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) and preventing its dimerization, a mechanism independent of its kinase activity [20]; the glycoprotein E (gE) and glycoprotein I (gI) genes, which together form an Fc receptor that masks virus‑infected cells from antibody‑dependent cellular cytotoxicity; the TK gene, essential for viral replication in non‑dividing cells such as sensory neurons; and the US3‑encoded serine/threonine kinase, which also contributes to neurovirulence and the blockade of IRF3 dimerization [20]. Deletion or inactivation of these virulence genes has been central to the rational design of attenuated vaccine candidates [6, 8, 16, 18].

Viral Life Cycle and Entry Mechanisms

A landmark study by Synowiec et al. (2023) provided the first systematic investigation of FHV‑1 entry into host cells, using both immortalized AK‑D cells and primary feline skin fibroblasts (FSFs) to model natural target cells [9]. The study definitively demonstrated that FHV‑1 enters host cells via pH‑dependent, dynamin‑dependent endocytosis. Infection was significantly inhibited by ammonium chloride (NH₄Cl) and bafilomycin A1, both of which neutralize acidic endosomal pH, and by dynasore and mitmab, which block dynamin function. Furthermore, treatment with genistein, nystatin, and filipin, along with siRNA‑mediated knockdown of caveolin‑1, revealed the involvement of caveolin‑mediated endocytosis. In primary FSFs, siRNA knockdown of clathrin heavy chain and colocalization studies indicated that clathrin‑mediated endocytosis also contributes to viral entry [9]. Thus, FHV‑1 exploits multiple endocytic pathways, a feature that enhances its ability to infect diverse cell types. Following internalization, the low pH of endosomes triggers conformational changes in the fusion machinery, leading to membrane fusion and release of the capsid into the cytoplasm. The capsid is then transported along microtubules to the nuclear pore, where viral DNA is injected into the nucleus for transcription and replication.

Once inside the nucleus, the viral genome undergoes a temporally regulated cascade of gene expression: immediate‑early (IE), early (E), and late (L) genes. The UL54 gene product, an IE protein, transactivates downstream viral promoters. Early proteins include the viral DNA polymerase (UL30) and its processivity factor (UL42), as well as enzymes involved in nucleotide metabolism such as TK. Late genes encode structural proteins, including capsid components and envelope glycoproteins. Xiao et al. (2024) utilized RNA‑sequencing to characterize early transcriptional changes in Crandell‑Rees Feline Kidney (CRFK) cells following FHV‑1 infection, identifying significant upregulation of genes involved in innate immune signaling, pro‑inflammatory cytokines, and chemokines [5]. These early host responses include activation of Toll‑like receptors (TLRs), interferon‑induced genes, and the NF‑κB pathway, yet the virus counteracts these responses through multiple immune evasion strategies, most notably the US3‑mediated blockade of IRF3 dimerization [20].

Pathogenesis and Latency

The hallmark of FHV‑1 infection is its ability to establish lifelong latency in sensory neurons, primarily within the trigeminal ganglia (TG). Following acute replication in the nasal mucosa, conjunctiva, and tonsils, the virus gains access to nerve endings and travels retrogradely via axonal transport to the TG, where it persists in a quiescent state with limited viral gene expression [21, 25]. Townsend et al. (2013) provided a comprehensive mapping of ocular and neural distribution during acute and latent infection in specific‑pathogen‑free (SPF) cats. During the acute phase (days 6–10 post‑inoculation), FHV‑1 was isolated from the conjunctiva, cornea, uveal tract, retina, optic nerve, ciliary ganglion, pterygopalatine ganglion, TG, brainstem, visual cortex, cerebellum, and olfactory bulb [25]. By day 30, viral DNA was detected in all TG, all cranial cervical ganglia, and two pterygopalatine ganglia, confirming the establishment of latency. Importantly, a strong correlation existed between clinical disease severity during the acute phase and the quantity of latent viral DNA in the TG, suggesting that more severe acute infections result in a higher latent viral load [25]. This finding has significant implications for understanding reactivation risk, as higher latent loads may predispose to more frequent or more severe recrudescence.

Reactivation from latency can be triggered by various stressors, including glucocorticoid administration, concurrent illness, poor nutrition, overcrowding, and the physiological stress of parturition or lactation. Contreras et al. (2017) demonstrated that administration of a feline facial pheromone reduced stress‑associated sneezing in experimentally infected kittens, supporting the role of stress management in controlling recrudescence [22]. The reactivated virus travels anterogradely along axons to peripheral sites, leading to renewed viral shedding and clinical signs. In some cases, latent virus can cause unusual pathological presentations. Philp et al. (2024) described a unique case of multiple respiratory eosinophilic nodules in an adult cat receiving long‑term oral prednisolone, where immunohistochemistry confirmed FHV‑1‑positive intranuclear inclusion bodies within the nodules [10]. This case highlights the pleomorphic nature of FHV‑1–associated disease under conditions of immunosuppression.

Host Range and Epidemiology

FHV‑1 has a broad host range within the family Felidae, affecting domestic cats as well as captive and wild felids including cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), lions (Panthera leo), tigers (Panthera tigris), and others [11, 15]. Marshall et al. (2022) reported the use of carbon dioxide laser surgery as an adjunctive treatment for FHV‑1 dermatitis in two cheetahs, illustrating the virus’s impact on endangered species and the need for specialized therapeutic approaches in zoo medicine [15]. The detection of FHV‑1 in chinchillas expands the known host range and raises questions about potential interspecies transmission dynamics in multi‑species housing facilities [14]. Experimental infection studies in SPF cats have demonstrated that the virus is shed in nasal and ocular secretions, with peak shedding occurring during the acute phase (days 5–15 post‑inoculation) [21]. Niu et al. (2020) established a natural host model using the FHV‑1 CH‑B isolate, showing that intranasal inoculation with 10⁵ TCID₅₀ reproduces the full spectrum of clinical disease, including upper respiratory signs, conjunctivitis, keratitis, and viral shedding, with clinical symptoms peaking at 10–15 days post‑inoculation and recovery by day 25 [21]. Notably, viremia and pulmonary involvement were absent in this model, consistent with the typical presentation of FHV‑1 infection.

Epidemiological studies consistently report high seroprevalence and molecular detection rates across diverse geographic regions. Cavalheiro et al. (2023) detected FHV‑1 DNA in 55.26 % of 152 domestic cats from Campo Grande, Brazil, with significant associations between infection and nasal discharge, ocular discharge, and sneezing [12]. Bayraktar and Yilmaz (2020) found FHV‑1 DNA in 43.3 % of 60 cats in Istanbul, Turkey, with co‑infections with feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV) being common [19]. In South Korea, Yang et al. (2020) isolated two FHV‑1 strains from naturally infected Korean cats and determined that the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of their TK and gB genes were 99.9 % identical to the US‑derived KANS‑02 strain, demonstrating the global conservation of FHV‑1 genomes [17]. Baumworcel et al. (2019) investigated environmental factors influencing FHV‑1 viral load in shelter cats in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and found that shelters with daily intake of new animals had the highest conjunctival viral loads (2.69 × 10⁸ copies/µL), whereas shelters with no new arrivals for several months had the lowest viral loads (1.63 × 10³ copies/µL) [24]. This study provides compelling evidence that shelter management practices, particularly quarantine protocols and stress reduction, directly influence viral reactivation and transmission dynamics.

Diagnostic Detection

The laboratory diagnosis of FHV‑1 infection has evolved from traditional virus isolation in CRFK cells to highly sensitive molecular methods. Virus isolation, once considered the gold standard, is fraught with challenges: FHV‑1 is notoriously labile, and its isolation from clinical samples is often unsuccessful, especially in the presence of co‑pathogens such as feline calicivirus (FCV) [2, 13]. Saltık and Fidan (2023) reported complete failure to isolate FHV‑1 from ten PCR‑positive ocular samples using CRFK cells, despite observable cytopathic effects in reference strains [13]. Zheng et al. (2025) developed an elegant method to overcome this obstacle by using rabbit‑derived FCV polyclonal antibodies to neutralize FCV in co‑infected specimens prior to virus isolation, enabling the selective isolation of pure FHV‑1 from mixed infections [2]. This approach has significant practical value for epidemiological surveillance and vaccine development.

Quantitative real‑time PCR (qPCR) has become the mainstay of

Molecular Pathogenesis of Feline Herpesvirus 1

Feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1), a member of the Varicellovirus genus within the Alphaherpesvirinae subfamily, is a globally ubiquitous pathogen and the primary etiological agent of feline viral rhinotracheitis (FVR). The virus is responsible for approximately 50% of all diagnosed viral upper respiratory tract diseases in cats and is a leading cause of ocular morbidity worldwide [8, 9]. From a global health perspective, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) recognizes FHV-1 as a significant pathogen of felids, and its impact extends beyond domestic cats to endangered wild felid populations, including cheetahs and lions, highlighting its ecological and conservation importance [11, 15]. The molecular pathogenesis of FHV-1 is a multifaceted process involving a sophisticated interplay of viral entry, intracellular replication, subversion of host innate immunity, establishment of lifelong latency, and periodic reactivation. Understanding these molecular mechanisms at a granular level is paramount for the rational design of next-generation vaccines and targeted antiviral therapies.

Viral Entry and Cellular Tropism

The initial step in FHV-1 pathogenesis is the attachment and entry into susceptible host cells, primarily epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract, conjunctiva, and cornea [18, 29]. The viral envelope is studded with multiple glycoproteins, of which glycoprotein B (gB), gC, and gD are critical for attachment and membrane fusion. gC mediates initial, reversible attachment to cell surface heparan sulfate proteoglycans, while gD binds to specific cellular receptors, triggering the fusion machinery orchestrated by gB and the gH/gL complex [4, 11]. Recent, systematic investigations have elucidated that FHV-1 entry is not a direct fusion event at the plasma membrane but rather a dynamin- and pH-dependent endocytic process. Using primary feline skin fibroblasts and the AK-D cell line, studies employing selective inhibitors and siRNA silencing have demonstrated that FHV-1 exploits both caveolin-mediated and clathrin-mediated endocytosis pathways. The virus was shown to colocalize with caveolin-1, and infection was significantly inhibited by nystatin and filipin (caveolar disruptors) as well as by clathrin heavy chain knockdown, indicating a redundant but cell-type-specific utilization of these routes [9]. Following internalization within endocytic vesicles, the acidic environment is essential for triggering the conformational changes in the fusion machinery, leading to the release of the viral capsid into the cytoplasm for subsequent nuclear transport and replication. This detailed understanding of the entry mechanism opens avenues for developing viral entry inhibitors, such as natural compounds like Saikosaponin B2, Punicalin, and Punicalagin, which have been shown to block FHV-1 entry at non-cytotoxic concentrations by targeting gB or other early steps [4].

Subversion of the Host Innate Immune Response

A cornerstone of FHV-1 molecular pathogenesis is its remarkable capacity to evade the host innate immune system, particularly the type I interferon (IFN) response. The type I IFN pathway is a frontline antiviral defense, and its effective blockade is essential for FHV-1 to establish a productive acute infection and ultimately, lifelong latency. The viral serine/threonine kinase US3 has been identified as the most potent inhibitor of the IFN-β signaling axis encoded by the FHV-1 genome. In a landmark study, FHV-1 US3 was demonstrated to block the type I IFN pathway through a novel, kinase-independent mechanism. Unlike its homologs in other alphaherpesviruses where kinase activity is required, FHV-1 US3 binds directly to the IRF association domain (IAD) of interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3), thereby preventing IRF3 dimerization. This blockade abrogates the formation of the enhanceosome complex on the IFN-β promoter, effectively shutting down IFN-β transcription at a critical upstream node [20]. The importance of US3 is underscored by the fact that a US3-deleted recombinant FHV-1 (rFHV-dUS3) induced significantly higher levels of IFN-β both in vitro and in vivo compared to wild-type virus. Furthermore, US3 deletion dramatically attenuated virulence, reduced virus shedding, and crucially, blocked viral invasion of the trigeminal ganglia, establishing US3 as a key regulator of neurovirulence [20, 32].

In counterpoint to this viral evasion strategy, the host cell mounts a defensive response through the modulation of microRNAs (miRNAs). FHV-1 infection has been shown to upregulate the expression of miR-101 and miR-26a via a cGAS-dependent pathway [30, 31]. These host miRNAs act as negative regulators of viral replication by targeting the cellular suppressor of cytokine signaling 5 (SOCS5), a negative regulator of the JAK-STAT pathway. By suppressing SOCS5, these miRNAs enhance the phosphorylation of STAT1, thereby amplifying type I IFN signaling cascades and inhibiting viral replication [30, 31]. This host-virus arms race at the level of transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation is a critical determinant of the outcome of infection. Further adding to the complexity, the FHV-1 US3 protein and other virulence factors can modulate the expression of cytokines and chemokines in infected respiratory epithelial cells. Wild-type FHV-1 infection has been shown to suppress the production of neutrophil chemoattractants like IL-8 and KC, while deletion of virulence genes such as gE and TK restores this chemokine production, suggesting that the virus actively manipulates the inflammatory milieu to favor its own replication and spread [18].

Latency, Neurotropism, and Reactivation

A defining feature of all alphaherpesviruses is their ability to establish lifelong latency in sensory neurons, and FHV-1 is no exception. Following primary replication in the mucosal epithelia, the virus invades the nerve endings of the trigeminal, pterygopalatine, and ciliary ganglia, where it travels via retrograde axonal transport to establish a latent infection [16, 21, 25]. The trigeminal ganglion (TG) serves as the primary site of latency. During acute infection, FHV-1 DNA and viral replication can be detected in a wide array of neural tissues, including the TG, brainstem, visual cortex, cerebellum, and olfactory bulb. A significant correlation has been established between the severity of acute clinical disease and the quantity of latent viral DNA detected in the TG on day 30 post-inoculation, implying that the viral load during acute infection dictates the size of the latent reservoir [25]. Histologically, acute infection is associated with mild inflammation and ganglion cell loss within the TG, a pathology reminiscent of that seen in human herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) infection [25].

The molecular mechanisms governing the establishment, maintenance, and reactivation from latency are intimately linked to the expression of specific viral gene products. The US3 gene product again plays a pivotal role; its deletion not only reduces acute virulence but also significantly blocks the invasion of the trigeminal ganglia [20]. Similarly, deletion of the UL50 gene (encoding dUTPase) and the US3 gene results in neuro-attenuated vaccine candidates that demonstrate significantly reduced viral loads in the trigeminal ganglia, highlighting the potential of these targets for creating safer vaccines [6]. The latency-reactivation cycle is profoundly influenced by host physiological states. Stress, whether environmental (e.g., crowding, poor shelter management) or pharmacological (e.g., corticosteroid administration), is a well-documented trigger for viral reactivation. Glucocorticoids can directly stimulate viral gene expression from the latent genome, leading to renewed viral replication, shedding, and recrudescent clinical disease [3, 10, 22]. The rate of new arrivals in a shelter setting is directly correlated with higher FHV-1 viral loads in resident cats, underscoring the role of stress-induced reactivation in maintaining viral transmission within populations [24]. Even the F2 modified-live vaccine strain has been isolated from a cat with a dendritic ulcer following corticosteroid treatment and recent vaccination, demonstrating that even attenuated strains can reactivate and cause pathology under immunosuppressive conditions [3].

The Role of Virulence Genes in Epithelial Damage and Systemic Spread

Several viral gene products beyond US3 are critical for full virulence, efficient cell-to-cell spread, and immune evasion. The glycoprotein E (gE) and glycoprotein I (gI) form a heterodimeric complex that functions as an Fc receptor for immunoglobulin G. This allows FHV-1 to bind the Fc portion of antibodies, effectively evading antibody-mediated neutralization and directing an anti-inflammatory signal, a phenomenon known as antibody bipolar bridging. Deletion of gE significantly impairs the capacity of the virus to spread across cell junctions and invade the underlying stroma in tracheal tissue explants, resulting in reduced virulence and tissue damage. The double deletion of gE and thymidine kinase (TK) further attenuates the virus, leading to significantly lower viral titers in feline respiratory epithelial cells and reduced clinical signs in vaccinated cats [8, 16, 18]. The thymidine kinase (TK) gene is a classic determinant of neurovirulence in herpesviruses; it is essential for viral DNA synthesis in non-dividing cells like neurons. Deletion of TK, often in combination with gI/gE, is a common strategy for generating safe and effective modified-live vaccine candidates [8, 16, 27]. These multigene deletion mutants (ΔTK/gI/gE) demonstrate severely impaired pathogenicity in cats, produce high levels of neutralizing antibodies, and provide superior protection against wild-type challenge compared to commercial vaccines [8]. The utility of TK as a target for insertion is also leveraged for the construction of reporter viruses for antiviral screening and for the development of bivalent vaccines expressing antigens of other feline pathogens, such as the VP2 protein of feline panleukopenia virus [26-28]. The ability to precisely edit these virulence genes using CRISPR/Cas9 technology has revolutionized the construction of recombinant FHV-1, enabling rapid and efficient generation of rationally attenuated vaccine candidates and molecular tools [7, 26].

Epidemiology and Transmission Dynamics of Feline Herpesvirus 1

Feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1) stands as a ubiquitous and highly prevalent pathogen within global felid populations, exerting a profound impact on both domestic cats and a broad spectrum of wild felidae, including cheetahs, lions, and tigers [11, 15]. The virus is a primary etiological agent of feline viral rhinotracheitis (FVR), a component of the feline respiratory disease complex (FRDC), and is responsible for approximately 50% of all diagnosed viral upper respiratory tract diseases in cats [8, 9, 29]. Understanding the intricate epidemiological patterns and transmission dynamics of FHV-1 is critical for developing effective control strategies, optimizing vaccination protocols, and managing the persistent burden of this pathogen in multi-cat environments such as shelters, catteries, and zoological collections. The virus’s ability to establish lifelong latency with periodic reactivation, coupled with its high morbidity and widespread seroprevalence, makes it a uniquely challenging infectious agent.

Global Prevalence and Geographic Distribution

FHV-1 exhibits a truly global distribution, with molecular and serological evidence confirming its presence on every continent where domestic cats reside. Epidemiological investigations consistently report high detection rates across diverse geographic regions. In Brazil, a study in Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, detected FHV-1 DNA in 55.26% (84/152) of sampled domestic cats, with a significant association between infection and clinical signs such as nasal discharge, ocular discharge, and sneezing [12]. This high frequency underscores the endemic nature of the virus in South American feline populations. Similarly, in Turkey, molecular screening of 60 household and stray cats revealed FHV-1 DNA in 26 animals (43.3%), with ocular disorders being a prominent clinical feature in positive cats [19]. In Asia, the virus is equally pervasive. A major epidemiological survey in China utilizing a quadruplex real-time PCR assay on 381 fecal samples from cats found an FHV-1 detection rate of 18.37% (70/381) [33]. In Korea, isolation and molecular characterization of FHV-1 from naturally infected cats confirmed the circulation of strains with high genetic homology (99.9%) to US isolates, indicating a globally conserved viral backbone [17]. Even in regions with advanced veterinary care, such as the United States, FHV-1 remains a dominant pathogen. A longitudinal study of shelter cats in Rio de Janeiro found that FHV-1 was the most frequently detected agent, present in 57.4% (62/108) of conjunctival swabs from kittens, with a significant proportion (70%) of clinically normal animals also testing positive, highlighting the existence of a substantial asymptomatic carrier population [38, 39]. This high prevalence in asymptomatic carriers is a hallmark of FHV-1 epidemiology. Serological surveys further reinforce this picture. A study of 89 domestic cats in China found that 93.75% of unvaccinated cats possessed neutralizing antibodies against FHV-1, indicating a near-universal natural exposure rate in the sampled population [36]. These data collectively demonstrate that FHV-1 is not merely a pathogen of sick animals but is endemic in most feline populations, with subclinical infection being far more common than overt clinical disease.

Transmission Routes and Mechanisms

The transmission of FHV-1 is predominantly horizontal, occurring through direct and indirect contact with infectious secretions. The virus is shed in high concentrations from oronasal and ocular secretions of acutely infected cats, as well as from cats experiencing recrudescent episodes of latent infection [21, 25]. Experimental infection studies have meticulously characterized the temporal dynamics of viral shedding. Following intranasal inoculation with a dose of 10⁵ TCID₅₀ of the FHV-1 CH-B strain, cats began exhibiting clinical signs at 5 days post-inoculation (dpi), with peak severity occurring between 10 and 15 dpi, followed by gradual recovery by 25 dpi [21]. During this acute phase, the virus replicates profusely in the turbinate epithelium, conjunctiva, cornea, and sensory neurons, and is shed at high titers, making direct contact via grooming, sniffing, and shared food/water bowls a highly efficient route of transmission [21, 25]. The virus can also be transmitted indirectly via fomites, including contaminated bedding, litter boxes, feeding utensils, and human hands. FHV-1 is a fragile, enveloped virus, but it can survive for short periods in the environment, particularly in moist secretions and at cooler temperatures, facilitating indirect transmission within high-density housing facilities.

Mechanistically, the initial stages of infection are dictated by viral glycoproteins that mediate attachment and entry. The virus enters host cells through a pH-dependent, dynamin-dependent endocytosis pathway, specifically utilizing caveolin-mediated endocytosis in both immortalized cell lines and primary feline skin fibroblasts [9]. This entry process is initiated by the interaction of viral glycoproteins, notably gB, gC, and gD, with cellular receptors. The critical role of gB is underscored by the fact that natural compounds like Saikosaponin B2, Punicalin, and Punicalagin exert their antiviral effects by blocking this early entry stage [4]. Once inside the cell, the virus replicates rapidly, causing extensive cytopathic effects (CPE) that lead to epithelial necrosis and sloughing, which in turn amplifies viral shedding and transmission. The virus’s tropism for epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract and cornea is a key determinant of its transmission efficiency, as these tissues are directly exposed to the external environment and facilitate easy egress of progeny virions in nasal and lacrimal secretions [18, 29]. Importantly, viremia is rarely observed in FHV-1 infection, with viral replication being restricted to mucosal surfaces and neural tissues, meaning transmission is almost exclusively via direct mucosal contact with contaminated secretions [21].

Latency, Reactivation, and the Role of Stress

The most critical factor in the epidemiology of FHV-1 is its ability to establish lifelong latency in sensory neurons, primarily within the trigeminal ganglia (TG), but also in the ciliary ganglion (CG), pterygopalatine ganglion (PTPG), and cranial cervical ganglion (CCG) [25]. Following primary infection, the virus travels retrograde along axons to these ganglia, where it remains in a quiescent state with limited gene expression. Approximately 80% of infected cats will harbor latent virus for life, converting them into permanent reservoirs capable of intermittent reactivation and shedding [36]. The seminal work by Townsend et al. (2013) established a robust correlation between the severity of acute clinical disease and the quantity of latent viral DNA present in the TG at 30 days post-inoculation, with a strong linear regression (p < 0.001) linking clinical score to latent viral load [25]. This suggests that cats experiencing more severe acute infections are not only more likely to shed large quantities of virus but also carry a higher burden of latent virus, potentially predisposing them to more frequent or intense reactivation episodes.

The reactivation of latent FHV-1 is inextricably linked to stress. Any physiological or psychological stressor, including overcrowding, poor nutrition, concurrent illness, transportation, weaning, or environmental disruption, can trigger the viral lytic cycle, leading to renewed viral shedding and clinical disease. Natural and experimental studies have validated this relationship. In a controlled trial using a feline pheromone (Feliway®) to mitigate stress in kittens previously infected with FHV-1, the pheromone group exhibited significantly less sneezing (p = 0.006) and increased sleep duration (p < 0.001) compared to the placebo group, suggesting that stress reduction directly decreases virus-associated clinical signs [22]. Conversely, shelter environments are potent amplifiers of FHV-1 transmission precisely because they concentrate multiple stressors. A study of four different shelters in Brazil demonstrated that environmental factors and management practices directly influenced FHV-1 viral load as measured by quantitative PCR. Shelters that accepted new arrivals daily had the highest conjunctival viral loads (mean 2.69 × 10⁸ copies/µL), whereas shelters that had not introduced new animals in the preceding months had dramatically lower viral loads (mean 1.63 × 10³ copies/µL) [24]. This finding has profound implications for shelter management: the stress associated with introduction to a new environment, combined with the immunomodulatory effects of co-mingling, creates a perfect storm for massive viral reactivation and shedding, perpetuating a cycle of infection within the facility. Furthermore, iatrogenic immunosuppression, such as the long-term administration of corticosteroids, can likewise precipitate severe reactivation. A case report described a 10-year-old cat receiving chronic prednisolone therapy that developed multiple respiratory eosinophilic nodules containing FHV-1–positive intranuclear inclusion bodies, a manifestation directly attributed to virus reactivation under glucocorticoid influence [10].

Host Susceptibility, Age, and Immune Status

While FHV-1 can infect cats of any age, susceptibility and disease severity are strongly modulated by host factors, most notably age, immunological naivety, and vaccination history. Kittens and young cats are disproportionately affected, in part due to the waning of maternally derived antibodies (MDA) combined with an immature adaptive immune system. A study examining neutralizing antibody responses in cats vaccinated against FHV-1 found that cats aged ≤3 months were significantly less likely to mount a protective antibody response compared to older cohorts; cats aged 3–12 months were 11.32-fold more likely, and cats aged ≥12 months were 9.22-fold more likely to exhibit viral suppression following vaccination [36]. This age-related immune responsiveness is a major reason why FHV-1 outbreaks are most severe in shelters and breeding catteries with high densities of kittens. Interestingly, the presence of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies does not guarantee protection from infection or shedding. Bergmann et al. (2019) reported that only 40.9% (45/110) of healthy adult cats had detectable neutralizing antibodies prior to vaccination, and of those, only 8.3% exhibited a four-fold or greater increase in titer following revaccination [34]. This indicates that natural infection is common but that the humoral immune response is often insufficient to prevent reinfection or to provide sterilizing immunity, a finding consistent with the virus’s ability to establish latency despite circulating antibodies.

Vaccination status profoundly alters the epidemiological landscape. Modified live virus (MLV) vaccines, while reducing clinical disease severity, do not prevent infection, viral shedding, or the establishment of latency [8, 9, 16]. This means that vaccinated cats can still serve as subclinical shedders within a population, particularly under stress. Paradoxically, vaccine strains themselves have been implicated in clinical disease. Genomic analysis of FHV-1 isolates from cats with dendritic corneal ulcers identified the MLV F2 strain in one of four cases; the full genome of the isolate was completely identical to the Virbac and Intervet F2 vaccine strains [3]. The affected cat had been vaccinated with the Merial vaccine just 17 days prior to virus isolation, and three of the four cats in the study had a history of corticosteroid treatment. This demonstrates that vaccine virus can replicate in the corneal epithelium, form lesions, and potentially be transmitted to other cats, blurring the line between vaccine safety and field strain pathogenicity.

Coinfections and the Feline Respiratory Disease Complex

FHV-1 does not circulate in isolation; it is a key component of the FRDC, frequently occurring in mixed infections with other primary respiratory pathogens, including feline calicivirus (FCV), Chlamydia felis, Mycoplasma felis, and Bordetella bronchiseptica [2, 35, 38, 39]. The frequency of coinfection is striking. In the Rio de Janeiro shelter study, 36.1% of samples contained more than one pathogen, and coinfections were significantly associated with more severe clinical conjunctivitis scores (grades 3 and 4) [38]. FHV-1 and FCV, in particular, are often co-detected, and their simultaneous presence complicates both diagnosis and virus isolation. Because FCV replicates more rapidly and often outcompetes FHV-1 in cell culture, specialized neutralization techniques using FCV-specific polyclonal antibodies are required to selectively isolate pure FHV-1 from coinfected specimens [2]. This technical challenge can lead to underreporting of FHV-1 in epidemiological studies if not properly addressed. More broadly, the presence of other pathogens alters the transmission dynamics of FHV-1. Coinfection with Mycoplasma felis or C. felis exacerbates tissue damage and inflammation, potentially increasing viral shedding [38, 39]. Additionally, the bacterial ocular surface microbiota itself appears to influence disease outcomes. Shelter cats with FHV-1 ocular disease who had higher bacterial alpha diversity (Shannon index, p = 0.042) and lower total bacterial DNA load were more likely to show clinical improvement in response to antiviral therapy compared to cats with lower diversity and higher bacterial burden [37]. This suggests that disruptions in the normal commensal flora may facilitate more severe FHV-1 replication or impair mucosal immune responses, adding another layer of complexity to transmission dynamics in crowded environments.

Role of the Host Innate Immune Response in Transmission

The outcome of FHV-1 exposure, whether it leads to acute disease, subclinical infection, or latency, is heavily influenced by the early innate immune response mounted by the host. The virus, however, has evolved sophisticated countermeasures to subvert these defenses. The FHV-1 US3 protein, a serine/threonine kinase, acts as a powerful inhibitor of type I interferon (IFN) induction by binding to the IRF association domain (IAD) of interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3), thereby preventing IRF3 dimerization and subsequent IFN-β transcription [20]. This immune evasion mechanism operates in a kinase-independent manner, which is unique among alphaherpesviruses. By blocking the earliest stages of the antiviral response, US3 allows the virus to replicate to higher titers in the nasal and ocular mucosa, thereby enhancing transmissibility. Deletion of US3 from the viral genome results in a mutant virus (rFHV-dUS3) that induces large amounts of IFN-β both in vitro and in vivo, and is significantly attenuated, with reduced virulence, decreased viral shedding, and impaired invasion of the trigeminal ganglia [20]. This underscores the direct link between innate immune evasion and epidemiological fitness. Host miRNAs also play a critical counter-regulatory role. FHV-1 infection upregulates miR-101 and miR-26a in a cGAS-dependent manner, and these miRNAs act to suppress viral replication by targeting cellular SOCS5, a negative regulator of the JAK-STAT pathway [30, 31]. By enhancing type I IFN signaling, these host-encoded miRNAs represent a natural mechanism to limit FHV-1 replication and transmission. The genetic diversity of circulating FHV-1 strains [23] likely includes variation in the potency of these immune evasion genes, which could translate into differences in shedding intensity, duration, and transmissibility between field strains.

Cross-Species Transmission and Zoonotic Potential

Historically, FHV-1 was considered strictly host-specific, but mounting evidence challenges this paradigm, expanding the epidemiological relevance of the virus beyond its feline host. The most compelling example of cross-species transmission involves chinchillas (Chinchilla lanigera). In a study of a chinchilla farm in China, 3.08% (4/130) of nasopharyngeal swabs tested positive for FHV-1 DNA, and the partial gD gene sequences from these chinchillas shared 99.21% homology with FHV-1 detected in two domestic cats residing on the same farm [14]. Phylogenetic analysis grouped the chinchilla sequences firmly within the FHV-1 clade. This is the first report of FHV-1 infection in chinchillas and suggests that these rodents may serve as accidental hosts or temporary reservoirs, potentially facilitating transmission within multi-species facilities. The proximity of infected cats to the chinchillas was the most probable source of infection. Furthermore, FHV-1-associated dermatitis has been documented in cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), where it presents a significant clinical challenge requiring adjunctive therapies such as carbon dioxide laser ablation [15]. While FHV-1 is not considered a zoonotic pathogen in the same manner as rabies or Toxoplasma gondii, the data reinforce the importance of considering FHV-1 in the differential diagnosis of respiratory or ocular disease in exotic felids and other susceptible mammals housed in close contact with domestic cats. The virus is not known to infect humans; however, its role as a model for alphaherpesvirus pathogenesis in its natural host is invaluable for comparative virology [21].

Clinical Manifestations and Ocular-Respiratory Disease

Feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1) is the primary etiological agent of feline viral rhinotracheitis (FVR), a syndrome that accounts for approximately 50% of all diagnosed viral upper respiratory tract diseases in cats [8, 29]. The clinical manifestations of FHV-1 infection are remarkably complex, spanning a spectrum from acute, self-limiting upper respiratory signs to chronic, debilitating ocular disease, with the virus’s unique capacity for establishing lifelong latency within sensory neurons underpinning its recurrent and recrudescent nature [21, 25]. The disease presentation is not monolithic; it is modulated by viral strain virulence, host immune status, age, environmental stressors, and the presence of concurrent pathogens [24, 37]. This section provides an exhaustive analysis of the clinical syndromes induced by FHV-1, with a particular emphasis on the intricate interplay between ocular and respiratory pathology.

The Acute Respiratory Syndrome: Feline Viral Rhinotracheitis

The hallmark of primary FHV-1 infection is an acute, often severe, upper respiratory tract disease. Following an incubation period of 2–6 days, the initial clinical signs are characterized by profound depression, pyrexia (often reaching 40°C or higher), and paroxysmal sneezing [21]. The virus exhibits a pronounced tropism for the epithelial cells of the nasal mucosa, turbinates, nasopharynx, and tonsils [18, 29]. Productive viral replication in these tissues leads to extensive epithelial necrosis and a robust neutrophilic inflammatory response, manifesting clinically as serous to mucopurulent nasal discharge [12, 19]. This initial serous discharge is a direct consequence of virus-induced cell lysis and increased vascular permeability, while the progression to a mucopurulent character typically signals secondary bacterial invasion, a common complication given the disruption of the mucosal barrier [41].

The respiratory distress observed can be significant. Cats often develop stertorous breathing and open-mouth breathing due to nasal congestion and obstruction from exudate and inflamed turbinates [10]. A characteristic clinical feature is the development of a productive cough, which is often exacerbated by tracheitis and laryngitis. In severe cases, particularly in young kittens or immunocompromised adults, the infection can descend into a bronchointerstitial pneumonia. While FHV-1 is classically considered an upper respiratory pathogen, experimental infections have demonstrated that the virus can replicate in the trachea and cause significant pulmonary lesions, including interstitial pneumonia and pulmonary edema, although viremia and viral infection of the lung parenchyma are not consistently observed [21]. The pathological correlate in the lower airways is a suppurative bronchiolitis and alveolitis, which, when combined with secondary bacterial infections, can be life-threatening.

Ocular Manifestations: From Conjunctivitis to Severe Keratitis

Ocular disease is arguably the most clinically significant and persistent component of FHV-1 infection, and it is a dominant reason for veterinary ophthalmology consultations [23, 45]. The virus infects the conjunctival epithelium and corneal epithelium, leading to a predictable sequence of clinical signs.

Conjunctivitis and Chemosis

The earliest ocular sign is an acute conjunctival hyperemia and serous ocular discharge [38, 43]. As the infection progresses, chemosis, marked edematous swelling of the conjunctiva, develops, often obscuring the nictitating membrane. The discharge transitions from serous to mucopurulent as inflammatory cells and cellular debris accumulate. The severity of conjunctivitis is highly variable, ranging from mild, subclinical inflammation detectable only on slit-lamp examination to severe, proliferative changes that can lead to symblepharon (adhesion of the conjunctiva to the cornea or itself) [38]. Notably, co-infections with Chlamydia felis or Mycoplasma felis are strongly associated with more severe grades of conjunctivitis, suggesting a synergistic pathogenic effect that exacerbates the inflammatory response [38, 46].

Keratitis and Dendritic Ulcers

The hallmark corneal lesion of FHV-1 is the dendritic ulcer. This pathognomonic epithelial defect, best visualized with fluorescein staining and a cobalt blue filter, results from the lytic replication of the virus within the corneal epithelium [3, 42]. Dendritic ulcers are linear, branching epithelial erosions with terminal bulbs, representing the intraepithelial spread of the virus via cell-to-cell fusion and lysis. While often superficial, they can coalesce to form larger geographic ulcers, which carry a risk of corneal stromal melting and perforation.

A critical and clinically challenging finding is that the FHV-1 modified live vaccine strain F2 has been demonstrated to replicate in the corneal epithelium and induce dendritic ulcers in vaccinated cats [3]. Genomic analysis of a clinical isolate (NS strain) from a cat with a dendritic ulcer revealed 100% identity to the F2 vaccine strain, indicating that the vaccine virus retains the capacity to cause ocular pathology under certain conditions, particularly when administered shortly before or after corticosteroid therapy [3]. This finding fundamentally alters the clinical interpretation of corneal ulcers in recently vaccinated animals and underscores the potential for vaccine-associated disease.

Beyond dendritic ulcers, FHV-1 is a primary driver of corneal inflammation. Severe cases can progress to stromal keratitis, characterized by corneal edema, cellular infiltration (neutrophils, lymphocytes, plasma cells), and neovascularization. Chronic or recurrent FHV-1 infection is a leading cause of corneal sequestra, particularly in brachycephalic breeds, where a necrotic, pigmented plaque forms within the corneal stroma. The pathogenesis of the sequestrum is multifactorial, but chronic inflammation from latent viral reactivation combined with tear film abnormalities and mechanical exposure is a central paradigm.

Uncommon Ocular Presentations and Adverse Therapeutic Reactions

The clinical spectrum also includes less common but serious ocular presentations. FHV-1 infection of the uveal tract, retina, and optic nerve has been documented during acute experimental infection, indicating that the virus can access intraocular structures [25]. This can manifest as anterior uveitis, retinitis, or optic neuritis, which may contribute to permanent visual impairment. Furthermore, the virus can infect autonomic ganglia, including the pterygopalatine ganglion, which may exacerbate ocular surface disease by disrupting normal lacrimal gland innervation and tear production [25].

The therapeutic landscape for FHV-1 ocular disease is not without its own clinical manifestations. Topical cidofovir, a broad-spectrum antiviral, has been associated with a unique and distinct local ocular toxicity syndrome in cats [40]. In a cohort of 140 treated cats, 4.3% developed a clinical syndrome characterized by persistent blepharospasm, ocular discharge, conjunctival hyperemia, chemosis, and a rapidly progressive conjunctival melanosis [40]. Conjunctival cytology in these cases reveals a mixed eosinophilic and neutrophilic inflammation with heavily pigmented epithelial cells. This iatrogenic syndrome can clinically mimic persistent FHV-1 infection, complicating diagnosis and management. The condition is typically reversible upon discontinuation of the drug, but this observation highlights the importance of limiting the duration of cidofovir therapy to ≤3 weeks [40].

Latency, Reactivation, and the Role of Stress

A defining feature of FHV-1 pathogenesis, and the cornerstone of its chronic clinical manifestations, is its ability to establish lifelong latency in sensory neurons, primarily within the trigeminal ganglia (TG) [6, 20, 25]. After primary infection, the virus travels retrogradely along axons to the neuronal cell bodies. During latency, the viral genome is maintained in a quiescent, episomal state with limited transcription. However, a variety of stressors can trigger reactivation, leading to the replication of virus in the TG, anterograde transport back to the periphery, and shedding of infectious virus from the nasal and ocular mucosa.

The clinical consequence of reactivation ranges from asymptomatic shedding to full-blown recrudescence of clinical disease. The most common clinical signs associated with reactivation are ocular, such as conjunctivitis and dendritic ulceration, rather than the severe respiratory signs of primary infection [22]. Environmental and management factors are potent triggers of reactivation. Shelter housing, particularly the stress of new arrivals and high population turnover, is directly correlated with increased FHV-1 viral loads in conjunctival samples, highlighting the profound impact of environmental stressors on viral recrudescence [24]. The application of a synthetic feline facial pheromone (Feliway) has been shown to reduce stress-associated sneezing, a proxy for viral recrudescence, providing a practical, non-pharmacological approach to managing latent infections [22]. This pheromonal effect is associated with decreased serum cortisol levels and a reduction in sneeze frequency, directly linking the neuroendocrine stress axis to viral reactivation dynamics [22].

Dermatitis and Systemic Signs

While FHV-1 is primarily a respiratory and ocular pathogen, it can also cause dermatitis, particularly in young kittens and stressed adults. FHV-1-associated dermatitis typically presents as ulcerative, crusting, or vesicular lesions, most commonly on the face, nasal planum, and periocular region [15, 44]. Histologically, these lesions are characterized by severe eosinophilic inflammation, intranuclear inclusion bodies, and positive FHV-1 immunohistochemistry [10]. In severe cases, such as in a cat receiving long-term oral prednisolone, FHV-1 has been documented to cause multiple respiratory eosinophilic nodules within the trachea and bronchi, leading to obstructive dyspnea, stridor, and pneumomediastinum [10]. This rare presentation expands the known clinical phenotype of FHV-1 to include mass-like obstructive airway disease, particularly in immunocompromised hosts. The utilization of CO2 laser surgery as an adjunctive treatment for FHV-1 dermatitis has been reported in cheetahs, demonstrating the refractory nature of this manifestation in non-domestic felids [15].

The Role of Coinfections and the Ocular Surface Microbiome

The clinical expression of FHV-1 is profoundly influenced by other members of the feline respiratory disease complex (FRDC). FHV-1 and feline calicivirus (FCV) are frequently co-detected, and coinfection poses a diagnostic challenge for virus isolation [2]. More importantly, the bacterial ocular surface microbiome plays a critical role in determining disease outcomes. Cats with FHV-1 ocular disease that have a poor response to antiviral therapy exhibit significantly lower bacterial species diversity, a higher overall bacterial DNA load, and a specific dysbiosis characterized by an overabundance of certain phyla compared to cats that improve with therapy [37]. Conversely, the presence of higher copy numbers of Bilophila wadsworthia and feline GAPDH (a marker for host cellular content) was associated with improved outcomes [37]. This suggests that a healthy, diverse ocular microbiota is essential for modulating the host’s immune response to FHV-1, and that its disruption (dysbiosis) may promote a pro-inflammatory state that exacerbates herpetic disease. Furthermore, co-infections with Mycoplasma felis or Chlamydia felis are significantly associated with more severe grades of conjunctivitis, shifting the clinical picture from a mild viral conjunctivitis to a severe, mixed suppurative and eosinophilic inflammation [38, 46].

FHV-1 as a Cause of Systemic and Neurologic Disease

Systemic complications arising from FHV-1 are less common but well-documented. Primary infection in neonatal kittens can lead to a fulminant, fatal syndrome characterized by severe pneumonia, hepatic necrosis, and encephalitis. The virus’s neurotropism is not limited to the trigeminal ganglia. Experimental infections have demonstrated viral DNA and antigen in the brainstem, visual cortex, cerebellum, and olfactory bulb of acutely infected cats [25]. While clinical neurologic signs are rare, the presence of virus in these central nervous system structures raises the possibility of subclinical encephalitis and potentially long-term neurological sequelae. Importantly, the deletion of the US3 gene, which encodes a serine/threonine protein kinase, significantly attenuates neurovirulence and blocks the invasion of the trigeminal ganglia, highlighting this gene as a critical determinant of the virus’s ability to establish latency and cause neuropathology [20]. The strong correlation between the severity of acute clinical disease and the copy number of latent viral DNA in the trigeminal ganglia underscores that the intensity of the initial infection directly dictates the risk and burden of lifelong latent infection [25].

Cross-Species Transmission and Public Health Context

While FHV-1 is highly host-specific, its clinical manifestations are not confined to domestic cats. The virus has been documented to cross species barriers, most notably causing respiratory and ocular disease in chinchillas, which can serve as temporary reservoirs [14]. This expands the epidemiological landscape of the virus and highlights the potential for interspecies transmission within multi-species household or shelter environments. While FHV-1 is not a zoonotic pathogen of human health concern according to the World Health Organization (WHO) or the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), its ability to cause severe, recurrent disease in a major companion animal species places a significant economic and emotional burden on veterinary healthcare systems globally.

Vaccination Strategies and Immune Responses against FHV-1

The development and deployment of effective vaccination strategies against Feline Herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1) represent a cornerstone of feline preventive medicine, yet the path to achieving sterilizing immunity remains fraught with biological and immunological complexities. FHV-1, a member of the Varicellovirus genus within the Alphaherpesvirinae subfamily, establishes lifelong latency in trigeminal ganglia following primary infection, a characteristic that fundamentally complicates vaccine design [20, 25]. The virus is responsible for approximately 50% of all diagnosed viral upper respiratory tract disease in cats, and despite decades of vaccine availability, the pathogen continues to circulate widely, with seroprevalence rates often exceeding 50% in various populations globally [12, 17, 36]. This persistent endemicity underscores the critical need to understand not only the humoral responses elicited by vaccination but also the often-overlooked cellular immune mechanisms that are essential for controlling intracellular viral replication and limiting reactivation from latency.

The Immunological Imperative: Beyond Neutralizing Antibodies

For decades, the evaluation of vaccine efficacy against FHV-1 has been predominantly anchored to the measurement of virus-neutralizing (VN) antibody titers and immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels. While these humoral markers provide a convenient correlate of protection, they offer an incomplete picture of the host's defensive arsenal. Seminal work by Wu et al. (2025) has fundamentally shifted this paradigm by demonstrating that vaccination with a modified live virus (MLV) vaccine elicits a robust Th1-type cellular immune response, characterized by significant increases in cytokine secretion, including interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) [1]. Critically, this study established an inverse correlation between cellular immune indicators, specifically CD8+ and CD4+ T cell counts, as well as IFN-γ levels, and the severity of clinical signs following virulent FHV-1 challenge [1]. This finding is biologically profound: it suggests that while antibodies may reduce viral load at mucosal surfaces, the elimination of virus-infected cells and the containment of viral spread within the host are primarily functions of cell-mediated immunity. The CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) are particularly crucial, as they directly recognize and lyse FHV-1-infected epithelial cells, thereby curtailing viral replication and limiting the extent of tissue damage in the upper respiratory tract and conjunctiva. The CD4+ T cells, in turn, provide essential help for B cell maturation and for the optimal activation of CTLs, creating a synergistic loop of adaptive immunity. This cellular arm of the immune response is especially critical given FHV-1's capacity to evade humoral immunity through cell-to-cell spread and its establishment of latency in neurons, where antibody access is restricted.

Modified Live Virus Vaccines: Efficacy, Safety, and the Latency Conundrum

Commercially available MLV vaccines, typically administered parenterally or intranasally, have been the mainstay of FHV-1 prophylaxis. These vaccines induce a broad immune response, including both humoral and cellular components, and have been shown to significantly reduce clinical disease severity and viral shedding upon challenge [1, 50]. However, a persistent and concerning issue is the potential for vaccine strains themselves to establish latency and, under certain conditions, reactivate to cause clinical disease. A landmark investigation by Suga and Kirisawa (2025) provided direct genomic evidence of this phenomenon, isolating the F2 MLV strain from a cat presenting with a dendritic corneal ulcer [3]. The full-genome sequencing of this isolate (the NS strain) revealed 100% identity with the open reading frames of two commercial F2 vaccine strains (Virbac and Intervet) [3]. This case is particularly instructive: the cat had been vaccinated with the Merial vaccine just 17 days prior to virus isolation, and three of the four cats in the study with dendritic ulcers had a history of corticosteroid treatment [3]. This strongly implicates iatrogenic immunosuppression as a trigger for vaccine-strain reactivation, highlighting a critical safety consideration. The F2 strain, while attenuated, retains the capacity to replicate in corneal epithelium and form lesions, particularly in immunocompromised hosts or when administered concurrently with immunosuppressive therapies. This finding necessitates a cautious clinical approach: corticosteroid administration should be avoided in the immediate post-vaccination period, and clinicians must remain vigilant for atypical presentations of ocular disease in recently vaccinated animals.

Next-Generation Vaccines: Gene Deletion and the Quest for Enhanced Safety and Immunogenicity

The limitations of conventional MLV vaccines have spurred the development of rationally designed, genetically engineered vaccine candidates. The strategic deletion of viral virulence and immune evasion genes represents a sophisticated approach to creating safer, more immunogenic vaccines. The thymidine kinase (TK) gene is a classic target for attenuation, as its deletion renders the virus unable to replicate in non-dividing cells, such as neurons, thereby reducing neurovirulence and the capacity for latency reactivation [8, 26, 27]. Similarly, glycoprotein E (gE) and glycoprotein I (gI) form a heterodimer that functions as an Fc receptor for IgG, a mechanism by which FHV-1 can evade antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Deletion of gI/gE not only attenuates the virus but also removes a key immune evasion molecule, potentially enhancing the host's ability to clear infected cells [8, 16, 48].

Yang et al. (2023) constructed a triple-deletion mutant, WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE, using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homologous recombination [8]. This recombinant virus exhibited severely impaired pathogenicity in cats while inducing high levels of gB-specific antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and IFN-β [8]. Most importantly, it provided superior protection against virulent challenge compared to a commercial MLV vaccine, with vaccinated cats showing significantly fewer clinical signs, reduced pathological changes, lower viral shedding, and critically, decreased viral loads in both the lung and the trigeminal ganglia [8]. The reduction of viral DNA in the trigeminal ganglia is a pivotal endpoint, as it suggests that this vaccine candidate may limit the establishment of latency, a feat that conventional vaccines have failed to achieve. This concept was further advanced by Qi et al. (2024), who generated FHV-△US3 and FHV-△UL50 deletion mutants [6]. The US3 gene encodes a serine/threonine protein kinase that is a potent inhibitor of the type I interferon (IFN) pathway; it blocks IFN regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) dimerization in a kinase-independent manner, thereby suppressing the host's innate antiviral response [20]. The UL50 gene, whose knockout had not been previously reported in FHV-1, is involved in dUTPase activity and viral DNA replication. Both FHV-△US3 and FHV-△UL50 demonstrated neuro-attenuation, with significantly reduced viral residue in the trigeminal ganglia, and induced stronger cellular and humoral immune responses than commercial vaccines [6]. The deletion of US3 is particularly elegant, as it simultaneously attenuates the virus and removes a key antagonist of the IFN system, allowing for a more robust innate immune response that primes the adaptive arm.

Recombinant Vectors and Multivalent Platforms: Expanding the Protective Umbrella

The large DNA genome of FHV-1, which contains numerous non-essential genes, makes it an exceptionally attractive platform for the development of multivalent recombinant vaccines [7]. The virus can be engineered to express immunogenic proteins from other feline pathogens, offering the potential for single-dose protection against multiple diseases. Yang et al. (2024) exploited this by inserting the feline parvovirus (FPV) VP2 gene into the WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE backbone, creating WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE-VP2 [27]. This bivalent vaccine induced FPV-neutralizing antibody titers above the protective cutoff by day 14 post-inoculation and protected kittens against challenge with both FPV and FHV-1 [27]. Similarly, Tang et al. (2024) developed a recombinant FHV-1 expressing the feline calicivirus (FCV) VP1 protein (FHV ΔgI/gE-FCV VP1), which not only induced robust immune responses but also significantly reduced clinical disease scores, pathological changes, and viral nasal shedding following FCV challenge [48]. These studies demonstrate the remarkable versatility of the FHV-1 vector. The ability to co-express immunomodulatory molecules further enhances this platform. The insertion of feline granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) into the WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE backbone (WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE-G-CSF) led to increased production of neutralizing antibodies and neutrophils, further alleviating clinical symptoms after FHV-1 infection [47]. G-CSF acts as a potent immune potentiator, recruiting and activating neutrophils, which are critical effectors in the early innate response against viral infections.

Alternative Vaccine Approaches: Subunit and Bacterium-Like Particles

While live viral vectors offer significant advantages, alternative platforms are being explored to address safety concerns associated with even attenuated live viruses. Jiao et al. (2023) developed a bacterium-like particle (BLP) vaccine displaying the FHV-1 glycoproteins gB, gC, and gD on the surface of Gram-positive enhancer matrix (GEM) particles [11]. This subunit approach is inherently safe, as it contains no replicating genetic material. The combination of all three glycoproteins (gB&gC&gD-GEM) mixed with a Gel02 adjuvant proved superior to single-glycoprotein constructs, inducing high levels of neutralizing antibodies, significant cytokine secretion, activation and maturation of B cells, and the generation of central memory T cells among both CD4+ and CD8+ T cell populations in mice [11]. The induction of central memory T cells is a particularly desirable feature, as these cells provide long-lived immunological memory capable of rapid expansion upon re-exposure to the pathogen. While this BLP vaccine provoked an antibody response in cats, its efficacy against virulent challenge remains to be fully characterized in the target species. Inactivated vaccines, such as the Carbopol-adjuvanted FCAV vaccine developed by Yang et al. (2023), represent another safe alternative, though they typically induce a more Th2-biased humoral response and may be less effective at stimulating the CTL responses critical for controlling intracellular FHV-1 replication [49].

The Role of Innate Immune Stimulation and Non-Specific Protection

An intriguing and clinically relevant phenomenon is the ability of intranasal MLV vaccines to confer non-specific protection against unrelated respiratory pathogens. Bradley et al. (2012) demonstrated that kittens administered a single intranasal dose of a bivalent FHV-1/FCV MLV vaccine were significantly less likely to develop clinical illness following challenge with Bordetella bronchiseptica, a bacterial pathogen not contained in the vaccine [50]. Vaccinated cats had significantly lower clinical scores and were less likely to sneeze in the first 10 days post-challenge [50]. This non-specific immunity is likely mediated by the induction of a local antiviral state through the stimulation of pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), such as Toll-like receptors (TLRs), leading to the production of type I IFNs and other innate cytokines that create a hostile microenvironment for a broad range of pathogens. This concept was further explored by Contreras et al. (2019), who used liposome-TLR ligand complexes (LTC) administered mucosally 24 hours before FHV-1 inoculation [43]. The LTC-treated kittens had significantly decreased FHV-1 DNA on oropharyngeal swabs and reduced conjunctivitis, demonstrating that direct stimulation of the innate immune system can provide rapid, albeit temporary, protection against FHV-1 [43]. These findings have profound implications for outbreak management in shelters, where rapid protection is needed before vaccine-induced adaptive immunity develops.

Immune Evasion and the Challenge of Latency

The ultimate barrier to FHV-1 eradication is the virus's sophisticated repertoire of immune evasion strategies, which directly undermine vaccine-induced immunity. The US3 protein, as detailed by Tian et al. (2018), is a master regulator of the host IFN response, binding to the IRF association domain (IAD) of IRF3 and preventing its dimerization, thereby blocking the transcription of IFN-β [20]. This inhibition of the type I IFN pathway dampens the antiviral state and impairs the activation of dendritic cells and the subsequent priming of T cell responses. Furthermore, the virus can downregulate MHC class I expression on infected cells, reducing their visibility to CD8+ CTLs. The establishment of latency in the trigeminal ganglia provides a sanctuary where the virus is largely invisible to the immune system, with only sporadic transcription of latency-associated transcripts [25]. Reactivation, triggered by stress, immunosuppression, or concurrent disease, leads to renewed viral shedding and clinical disease, even in previously vaccinated animals [22, 24]. This cycle of latency and reactivation ensures the virus's persistence within the feline population, explaining why vaccination, while reducing disease severity, has failed to eliminate infection. The development of vaccines that can prevent the establishment of latency or effectively control reactivation remains the "holy grail" of FHV-1 vaccinology. The promising data from gene-deleted mutants like FHV-△US3 and FHV-△UL50, which show reduced ganglionic viral loads, suggest that this goal may be attainable [6].

Diagnostic Approaches for FHV-1 Detection and Differentiation from Coinfections

The clinical diagnosis of feline herpesvirus-1 (FHV-1) infection presents a formidable challenge to veterinary practitioners, primarily due to the extensive clinical overlap with other pathogens comprising the feline respiratory disease complex (FRDC) and the high prevalence of subclinical latency. The diagnostic landscape for FHV-1 has evolved considerably from traditional virus isolation to sophisticated molecular platforms capable of simultaneous pathogen discrimination. A comprehensive understanding of the strengths, limitations, and appropriate clinical contexts for each diagnostic modality is essential for accurate interpretation and effective patient management.

Traditional Diagnostic Modalities: Virus Isolation, Serology, and Immunofluorescence

Historically, virus isolation (VI) in Crandell-Rees Feline Kidney (CRFK) cells has served as the gold standard for FHV-1 detection, relying on the development of characteristic cytopathic effects (CPE), including cellular rounding, syncytia formation, and eventual monolayer destruction. However, the practical utility of VI is constrained by several factors. FHV-1 is notoriously labile, and successful isolation requires meticulous sample handling, rapid transport in appropriate viral transport media, and maintenance of the cold chain. Even under optimal conditions, sensitivity is suboptimal. In a seminal evaluation of diagnostic methods, Maggs and colleagues demonstrated that VI detected FHV-1 in only 18.2% of cats with clinical disease, compared to detection rates of 33.3% by immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) assay and rates exceeding 90% by PCR in contemporary studies [53]. Furthermore, the detection of FHV-1 by VI in 10.9% of clinically normal cats underscores the critical diagnostic dilemma: a positive result does not distinguish between active infection, latent carrier status, or incidental viral shedding following reactivation [53]. More recent work has highlighted additional challenges; Saltık and Fidan reported that despite PCR-positive conjunctival samples from naturally infected cats, no CPE was observed in CRFK cell cultures, and subsequent PCR analysis of culture supernatants was negative, suggesting that viral viability or infectivity may be compromised in certain clinical specimens [13]. This raises the possibility that ocular samples, in particular, may contain non-infectious viral particles or immune-complexed virus that eludes culture-based detection.

Serological approaches, including serum neutralization (SN) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), suffer from fundamental limitations that render them diagnostically unhelpful in the individual patient. FHV-1 seroprevalence is extraordinarily high in the feline population, often exceeding 90% in multi-cat environments, a finding attributed to widespread natural exposure, vaccination, or both. Maggs et al. reported that overall seroprevalence was 97% by ELISA and 66% by SN, with no significant differences between clinically normal cats and those with acute respiratory or chronic ocular disease [53]. Moreover, the magnitude of antibody titers did not correlate with clinical status. A four-fold rise in convalescent titers may support recent infection, but this approach is retrospective and impractical for acute clinical decision-making. Recent investigations have confirmed these observations; Yang and colleagues, utilizing a double-reporter FHV-1 neutralization assay, found that 93.75% of unvaccinated cats harbored neutralizing antibodies, indicating extensive natural exposure, while paradoxically, 82.19% of vaccinated cats lacked detectable neutralizing antibodies, suggesting marked individual variation in vaccine responsiveness [36]. These data collectively indicate that serology is of minimal utility for diagnosing active FHV-1 disease and should be reserved for population-level serosurveillance or vaccine efficacy studies.

The IFA assay, performed on conjunctival scrapings, detects viral antigen in epithelial cells and offers the advantage of rapid turnaround. However, its sensitivity is variable, and like VI, it can yield positive results in clinically normal cats. Maggs et al. found that 28.3% of clinically normal cats were IFA-positive, compared to 33.3% of diseased cats, yielding sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values that never all exceeded 50% [53]. Notably, while FHV-1 was never detected by both VI and IFA simultaneously in clinically normal cats, the diagnostic accuracy of either test alone was insufficient to confirm or exclude FHV-1 as the etiologic agent. Despite these limitations, concurrent assessment of both VI and IFA results may permit exclusion of FHV-1 if both tests are negative, providing some clinical utility in ruling out the virus [53].

Molecular Diagnostics: The Paradigm Shift to Nucleic Acid Amplification

The advent of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and its quantitative variants (qPCR) has revolutionized FHV-1 diagnostics, offering unparalleled sensitivity, specificity, and speed compared to traditional methods. Real-time qPCR assays targeting conserved regions of the FHV-1 genome, most commonly the thymidine kinase (TK) gene or glycoprotein B (gB) gene, can detect as few as 10-50 copies of viral DNA per reaction [33, 51]. This analytical sensitivity far surpasses that of conventional PCR and culture, enabling detection even in samples with low viral loads, such as those from latent carriers or during the early or waning phases of acute infection. Furthermore, qPCR provides quantitative data, allowing assessment of viral load, which may correlate with clinical severity and transmissibility. Baumworcel and colleagues demonstrated that shelter environments with high stress and frequent new arrivals were associated with significantly elevated conjunctival FHV-1 viral loads, as high as 2.69 × 10⁸ copies/µL, compared to 1.63 × 10³ copies/µL in low-stress shelters, highlighting the utility of viral load quantification as a proxy for management practices and disease risk [24].

Multiplex Molecular Platforms for Differentiation of Coinfections

The greatest advance in FHV-1 diagnostics has been the development of multiplex qPCR assays capable of simultaneously detecting and differentiating FHV-1 from other major FRDC pathogens, including feline calicivirus (FCV), feline panleukopenia virus (FPV), and feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV), as well as from bacterial agents such as Chlamydia felis and Mycoplasma spp. This is of paramount clinical importance because coinfection rates are exceedingly high. Wang et al. developed a quadruplex TaqMan MGB fluorescent quantitative PCR method targeting the TK gene of FHV-1, the VP2 gene of FPV, the ORF2 gene of FCV, and the N gene of FIPV [33]. This assay achieved detection limits as low as 53.21 copies/µL for FHV-1, with no cross-reactivity against other common feline pathogens, and amplification efficiencies of 96.28% [33]. Clinical application to 381 fecal samples revealed detection rates of 18.37% for FHV-1, 26.77% for FCV, 13.65% for FPV, and 9.71% for FIPV, with 100% agreement with commercial kits [33]. The high-throughput nature of this quadruplex assay, with inter-batch and intra-batch coefficients of variation ranging from 0.14% to 1.37%, makes it suitable for large-scale epidemiological surveillance and routine clinical diagnostics.

Similarly, triplex TaqMan qPCR assays have been developed and validated for simultaneous detection of FCV, FPV, and FHV-1. Cao et al. reported a triplex assay with a detection limit of 5 × 10¹ copies per assay for each virus, representing a 10- to 100-fold improvement over conventional PCR, with intra-assay CVs below 1.86% and inter-assay CVs below 3.19% [51]. In a pilot study of 48 clinical samples, the triplex assay yielded a total positive rate of 70.83%, compared to 62.5% using commercial kits, demonstrating superior accuracy [51]. The capacity to differentiate these viruses in a single reaction is invaluable, as they share similar clinical presentations, fever, nasal discharge, conjunctivitis, sneezing, yet require different therapeutic and management approaches. FCV, for instance, may be associated with oral ulceration and acute polyarthritis, while FPV is a cause of severe enteritis and panleukopenia. Accurate differentiation directs appropriate antiviral therapy, supportive care, and isolation protocols.

Specialized Techniques for Coinfection Resolution: Antibody Neutralization and Selective Isolation

The frequent occurrence of FHV-1/FCV coinfections presents a unique challenge for virus isolation and molecular diagnostics. When mixed infections are present, standard cell culture may lead to overgrowth of one virus, particularly FCV, which replicates rapidly and induces CPE that masks or obscures FHV-1. To address this, Zheng et al. developed an elegant method for the selective isolation of FHV-1 from coinfected specimens using FCV-specific polyclonal antibodies for neutralization prior to culture [2]. Rabbit-derived FCV polyclonal antibodies with neutralizing activities of 1:128, 1:537, and 1:91 were employed to neutralize FCV in clinical samples, after which FHV-1 could be isolated in cell culture without cross-contamination. This technique was validated by both immunofluorescence and qRT-PCR and is theoretically applicable to the isolation of other viruses from coinfected specimens [2]. While this method is primarily a research tool for obtaining pure viral isolates for genotyping and vaccine development, it underscores the complexity of diagnostic interpretation in mixed infections and the need for careful methodological selection.

Point-of-Care and Isothermal Amplification Technologies

The need for rapid, field-deployable diagnostics that do not require sophisticated laboratory infrastructure has driven the development of isothermal amplification technologies, particularly recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA). Wang et al. developed an exo-RPA assay targeting the TK gene of FHV-1 that operates at a constant temperature of 39°C and provides results within 20 minutes [52]. The detection limit of the exo-RPA assay was 10² copies per reaction, equivalent to that of real-time PCR, and it demonstrated no cross-detection with FPV, FCV, bovine herpesvirus-1, pseudorabies virus, or Chlamydia psittaci [52]. Validation against 120 clinical nasal and ocular conjunctival swabs yielded results identical to those obtained by qPCR. The exo-RPA assay offers several advantages for field applications: it uses portable equipment, commercial reagents in vacuum-sealed pouches are stable at room temperature for extended periods, and the reaction is significantly faster than PCR [52]. This technology holds promise for use in shelters, remote veterinary clinics, and resource-limited settings where timely diagnosis can guide treatment and biosecurity decisions.

In Situ Hybridization and Histopathological Confirmation

For cases involving atypical presentations, such as FHV-1-associated dermatitis, eosinophilic laryngotracheitis, or intraocular disease, histopathological examination with ancillary molecular techniques may be necessary. Standard histopathology may reveal characteristic intranuclear inclusion bodies (Cowdry type A), but these are not always present and can be difficult to distinguish from other nuclear abnormalities. Mazzei and colleagues evaluated the utility of qRT-PCR with the 2⁻ΔΔCq method and RNAscope in situ hybridization (RNA-ISH) for diagnosing FHV-1-associated dermatitis in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues [44]. Using the relative quantification (2⁻ΔΔCq) method, upregulation of both gB and TK viral genes was observed in all histologically confirmed herpetic dermatitis cases and in two of six cases with ambiguous histopathology (allergic vs. viral), while no upregulation was seen in nonherpetic dermatitis or healthy controls [44]. RNA-ISH positivity correlated perfectly with the 2⁻ΔΔCq results. These techniques offer superior specificity compared to conventional PCR on FFPE tissues, as they detect viral mRNA, indicating active transcription, rather than latent DNA [44]. This distinction is critical, as latent FHV-1 DNA may persist in tissues without causing disease, and its detection by conventional PCR could lead to false attribution of clinical signs to FHV-1.

Differentiating Vaccine Strains from Field Strains

An emerging diagnostic challenge is the need to differentiate between wild-type FHV-1 field strains and vaccine strains, particularly the modified live virus (MLV) F2 strain, which can be isolated from vaccinated cats and has been linked to corneal dendritic ulcers. Suga and Kirisawa performed genomic analysis of FHV-1 isolates from four cats with dendritic ulcers and identified nucleotide variants unique to the F2 strain within ORF28 and ORF44 [3]. By simple PCR-based genotyping targeting these single nucleotide variants, they classified one of four isolates (the NS strain) as the F2 strain, which was confirmed by next-generation sequencing showing 100% identity with the Virbac and Intervet F2 vaccine strains and some clones of the Merial vaccine strain [3]. Critically, the cat from which the NS strain was isolated had been vaccinated 17 days prior with the Merial vaccine [3]. This finding has profound diagnostic implications: a positive FHV-1 PCR result from a recently vaccinated cat does not necessarily indicate field virus infection, as the vaccine strain can replicate, be shed, and even cause clinical lesions. Three of four affected cats in this study had a history of corticosteroid treatment, suggesting that immunosuppression may facilitate F2 strain replication and lesion formation [3]. Therefore, in clinical practice, vaccination history and time since vaccination must be considered when interpreting diagnostic results, and genotyping assays may be required for medicolegal or epidemiological investigations.

Practical Considerations and Diagnostic Algorithm

Despite the availability of highly sensitive molecular tests, the interpretation of positive results must be contextualized. Zirofsky and colleagues evaluated the predictive value of conventional PCR for FHV-1 and Mycoplasma spp. in shelter cats with suspected acute ocular infections and found that the positive predictive value of the FHV-1 PCR assay for response to topical cidofovir was only 29.4%, with a negative predictive value of 60% [35]. This low predictive value reflects the high prevalence of subclinical FHV-1 shedding in shelter populations and the frequent presence of coinfections. The authors concluded that performing these tests to formulate a treatment protocol has minimal clinical utility in cats with suspected acute ocular infections [35]. Similarly, Baumworcel et al. found that FHV-1 was detected by PCR in 70% of clinically normal kittens and 85.3% of kittens with conjunctivitis, and that more severe clinical signs (grades 3 and 4) were associated with coinfections by C. felis and M. felis rather than with FHV-1 alone [38]. These data underscore that while molecular diagnostics are exceptionally sensitive, they cannot differentiate between active, causative infection and incidental viral shedding in an animal with clinical signs caused by another pathogen.

Given these complexities, optimal diagnostic algorithms for FHV-1 should incorporate multiple data streams. For cats presenting with acute upper respiratory tract disease, a comprehensive qPCR panel capable of detecting FHV-1, FCV, FPV, C. felis, and Mycoplasma spp. is recommended, as it can identify coinfections and direct appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Quantitative viral load assessment may provide additional context; high viral loads (e.g., >10⁶ copies/swab) are more suggestive of active infection than low-level shedding. Negative results by qPCR on properly collected ocular, nasal, and oropharyngeal swabs effectively rules out FHV-1 as a cause of current clinical signs due to the assay's high sensitivity. For chronic or atypical presentations, such as ocular disease unresponsive to therapy, cutaneous lesions, or suspected vaccine-associated disease, additional testing including histopathology, RNA-ISH, and vaccine strain genotyping may be warranted. Ultimately, no single diagnostic test provides definitive proof of FHV-1 causation; the diagnosis rests on a synthesis of clinical history, physical examination findings, exclusion of other pathogens, and, in some cases, response to specific antiviral therapy.

Advances in Recombinant FHV-1 Engineering Using CRISPR/Cas9

The advent of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has fundamentally transformed the landscape of herpesvirus reverse genetics, offering an unprecedented level of precision, speed, and efficiency in the manipulation of large DNA genomes. For feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1), a pathogen with a genome exceeding 130 kilobases, conventional methods for generating recombinant viruses, such as traditional homologous recombination in eukaryotic cells or the use of bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs), have historically been labor-intensive, time-consuming, and plagued by low recombination frequencies [7, 26]. The application of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing has not only circumvented these bottlenecks but has also enabled the rational design of next-generation vaccine candidates, multivalent viral vectors, and sophisticated reporter viruses for antiviral screening. This section provides an exhaustive analysis of the current state of recombinant FHV-1 engineering using CRISPR/Cas9, detailing the mechanistic underpinnings, strategic applications, and the profound implications for feline health and vaccinology.

The CRISPR/Cas9-FACS Paradigm: Accelerating Recombinant Virus Isolation

The foundational challenge in generating recombinant herpesviruses lies in the efficient isolation of the desired mutant from a vast background of parental virus. Wang et al. (2025) addressed this by integrating CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing with fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), creating a pipeline that reduces the timeline for recombinant virus generation from weeks to mere days [26]. In this system, a CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complex, directed by a specific single-guide RNA (sgRNA), introduces a double-strand break at a precise genomic locus, in this case, the thymidine kinase (tk) gene or the glycoprotein E (gE) gene. Simultaneously, a homologous recombination repair template, carrying a fluorescent reporter gene (mCherry for tk disruption, GFP for gE disruption) flanked by homology arms, is provided. The Cas9-induced cleavage dramatically enriches for cells where homologous recombination has occurred, as non-recombinant genomes are cleaved and rendered non-viable. Subsequently, FACS is employed to physically separate cells expressing the fluorescent reporter, yielding a highly pure population of recombinant virus within a single passage [26]. This combined approach not only accelerates the process but also eliminates the need for multiple rounds of plaque purification, a traditional bottleneck. The biological significance of targeting tk and gE is profound: tk is a canonical virulence factor essential for viral replication in non-dividing cells like neurons, and its deletion is a cornerstone of attenuation for many alphaherpesviruses. Similarly, gE is a critical component of the viral Fc receptor and facilitates cell-to-cell spread and neuroinvasion. The rapid generation of double knockouts via this CRISPR/FACS platform provides a powerful tool for dissecting the roles of these genes in pathogenesis and for constructing safe vaccine backbones [8, 26].

Targeted Gene Deletion for Attenuation and Immune Modulation

The precision of CRISPR/Cas9 has been harnessed to systematically delete specific virulence-associated genes, yielding recombinant viruses with defined attenuation profiles and enhanced immunogenicity. Yang et al. (2023) employed CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homologous recombination to construct a triple-gene deletion mutant, WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE, by sequentially targeting the tk, gI, and gE loci [8]. The rationale for this combinatorial deletion is multi-faceted. The gI/gE complex forms a heterodimer that acts as a viral Fc receptor, modulating antibody responses and facilitating cell-to-cell spread. Deletion of these genes, in concert with tk, results in a virus with severely impaired pathogenicity in cats, while retaining the ability to induce robust humoral and cellular immune responses. Notably, this mutant provided superior protection against wild-type challenge compared to a commercial modified live vaccine, with significantly reduced viral shedding and lower viral loads in the trigeminal ganglia [8]. This work underscores the principle that CRISPR/Cas9 allows for the rational design of "designer" vaccines where multiple virulence determinants can be excised simultaneously, creating a safer and more efficacious product.

Further expanding the repertoire of targeted deletions, Qi et al. (2024) used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate two novel neuro-attenuated vaccine candidates: FHV-△US3 and FHV-△UL50 [6]. The US3 gene encodes a serine/threonine protein kinase that is a master regulator of immune evasion; it has been shown to block type I interferon signaling by binding to interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) and preventing its dimerization, a mechanism independent of its kinase activity [20]. Deletion of US3, therefore, not only attenuates the virus but also enhances the host's innate antiviral response. The UL50 gene, whose knockout in FHV-1 was previously unreported, encodes a dUTPase involved in nucleotide metabolism. Both mutants exhibited excellent proliferation ability and genetic stability, but critically, they demonstrated a neuro-attenuated phenotype, with significantly reduced viral persistence in the trigeminal ganglia compared to wild-type virus [6]. This is a crucial advancement, as the establishment of latency in sensory neurons is a hallmark of FHV-1 infection and a major obstacle to viral clearance. By reducing the latent viral reservoir, these CRISPR-engineered mutants hold the promise of not only preventing disease but also potentially reducing the risk of lifelong latency and reactivation.

Engineering Multivalent Vaccine Vectors and Immunomodulatory Viruses

Beyond simple gene deletion, CRISPR/Cas9 has enabled the insertion of foreign genes into the FHV-1 genome, transforming the virus into a versatile vaccine vector capable of conferring protection against multiple feline pathogens simultaneously. The non-essential nature of genes like tk, gI, and gE provides safe harbor loci for the integration of heterologous antigens without compromising the vector's replication capacity [7]. Yang et al. (2024) demonstrated this by constructing WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE-VP2, a recombinant virus expressing the VP2 capsid protein of feline parvovirus (FPV) [27]. Using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homologous recombination, the VP2 expression cassette was inserted into the genome of the triple-deletion mutant. The resulting bivalent vaccine elicited robust neutralizing antibody responses against both FHV-1 and FPV in immunized cats and provided complete protection against challenge with both virulent viruses [27]. This approach elegantly addresses a major clinical need, as FPV is a highly contagious and often fatal pathogen, and a combined vaccine simplifies vaccination protocols.

In a parallel strategy, Tang et al. (2024) used a similar platform to construct FHV ΔgI/gE-FCV VP1, which expresses the VP1 capsid protein of feline calicivirus (FCV) [48]. The recombinant virus not only induced strong immune responses but also led to the formation of FCV virus-like particles (VLPs) within infected cells, further enhancing immunogenicity. This work highlights the potential of FHV-1 as a "super-vector" capable of delivering complex antigens that self-assemble into immunogenic structures.

The utility of the FHV-1 vector extends beyond the expression of foreign antigens. Yang et al. (2024) also engineered a recombinant virus expressing feline granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), a potent immunomodulatory cytokine [47]. The rationale was to create a vaccine that not only delivers antigen but also co-delivers an adjuvant directly at the site of infection. The resulting virus, WH2020-ΔTK/gI/gE-G-CSF, induced higher levels of neutralizing antibodies and a more robust neutrophil response compared to the parental vaccine strain, leading to enhanced protection against FHV-1 challenge [47]. This represents a paradigm shift in vaccine design, moving from simple antigen delivery to the active manipulation of the host immune environment.

Development of Reporter Viruses for Antiviral Screening

The application of CRISPR/Cas9 has also been instrumental in creating reporter FHV-1 strains that serve as high-throughput tools for antiviral drug discovery. Yang et al. (2024) constructed a recombinant FHV-1 expressing both a secreted Gaussia luciferase (GLuc) and a bright green fluorescent protein (mNeonGreen) [28]. The dual-reporter system allows for real-time, quantitative monitoring of viral replication in vitro, as the expression of both reporters is strictly dependent on viral propagation. The reporter virus remained stable for at least 20 passages in cell culture, and its utility was validated using the known inhibitor ganciclovir [28]. This tool dramatically simplifies the screening of large compound libraries, enabling the rapid identification of novel antiviral agents. The ability to use GLuc, which is secreted into the culture supernatant, allows for non-destructive, kinetic measurements, making it ideal for automated high-content screening. Such reporter viruses are indispensable for evaluating the efficacy of emerging therapeutics, such as the helicase-primase inhibitor amenamevir [54] or natural entry inhibitors like saikosaponin B2 [4], against a genetically defined FHV-1 backbone.

References

[1] Wu H, Qiao P, Chen Y, Liu C, Huo N, Ding H, et al.. Cellular and humoral immune responses in cats vaccinated with feline herpesvirus 1 modified live virus vaccine. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1516850

[2] Zheng H, Yue H, Wang B, Yu X, Liu Y, Yu J, et al.. An efficient method for the selective isolation of feline herpesvirus 1(FHV-1) in feline calicivirus (FCV) coinfected specimens. BMC Veterinary Research. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-025-04786-w

[3] Suga Y, Kirisawa R. Isolation of the feline herpesvirus-1 modified live vaccine strain F2 from one of four cats with dendritic ulcers. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X241306954

[4] Liu B, Jiao X, Dong X, Guo P, Wang S, Qin Z. Saikosaponin B2, Punicalin, and Punicalagin in Vitro Block Cellular Entry of Feline Herpesvirus-1. Viruses. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v16020231

[5] Xiao X, Xu F, Jia F. Early Transcriptional Changes in Feline Herpesvirus-1-Infected Crandell-Rees Feline Kidney Cells. Veterinary Sciences. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11110529

[6] Qi M, Yang M, Luo R, Fang L, Chen Y, Gao J, et al.. A novel neuro-attenuated vaccine candidate with excellent safety and protective efficacy against highly virulent Feline Herpesvirus-1.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2024.110276

[7] Luo X, Liang R, Liang L, Tang A, Hou S, Ding J, et al.. Advancements, challenges, and future perspectives in developing feline herpesvirus 1 as a vaccine vector. Frontiers in Immunology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1445387

[8] Yang M, Jiao Y, Yan Y, Li L, Hu X, Jiao Z, et al.. Safety and immunogenicity of a TK/ gI/gE gene-deleted feline herpesvirus-1 mutant constructed via CRISPR/Cas9 in feline.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109728

[9] Synowiec A, Dąbrowska A, Pachota M, Baouche M, Owczarek K, Niżański W, et al.. Feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1) enters the cell by receptor-mediated endocytosis. Journal of Virology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00681-23

[10] Philp HS, Johnson LR, Choi E, Brosnan R, Slater R. Feline herpesvirus-1-related multiple respiratory eosinophilic nodules in an adult cat receiving long-term oral prednisolone. JFMS open reports. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20551169231220291

[11] Jiao C, Jin H, Zhang M, Liu D, Huang P, Bai Y, et al.. A bacterium-like particle vaccine displaying protective feline herpesvirus 1 antigens can induce an immune response in mice and cats.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109898

[12] Cavalheiro JB, Echeverria J, Ramos CA, Babo-Terra V. Frequency of feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV-1) in domestic cats from Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202320221010

[13] Saltık H, Fidan Y. Feline herpesvirus-1 (FeHV-1) in cats with ophthalmic problems: attempted propagation in CRFK cell lines. Veterinary Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24880/maeuvfd.1340620

[14] Shi L, Huang S, Lu Y, Su Y, Guo L, Guo L, et al.. Cross‐species transmission of feline herpesvirus 1 (FHV‐1) to chinchillas. Veterinary Medicine and Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.914

[15] Marshall KR, Turner R, Emerson J, Santoro D. Successful use of carbon dioxide laser surgery as an adjunctive treatment for feline herpesvirus-1 dermatitis in two cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus).. Veterinary dermatology (Print). 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.13078

[16] Lee Y, Maes R, Kiupel M, Nauwynck H, Hussey G. Characterization of feline herpesvirus-1 deletion mutants in tissue explant cultures.. Virus Research. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2020.197981

[17] Yang D, Kim H, Park Y, Yoo J, Choi S, Park Y, et al.. Isolation and Molecular Characterization of Feline Herpesvirus 1 from Naturally Infected Korean Cats. Journal of Bacteriology and Virology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4167/JBV.2020.50.4.263

[18] Lee Y, Maes R, Tai S, Hussey GS. Viral replication and innate immunity of feline herpesvirus-1 virulence-associated genes in feline respiratory epithelial cells.. Virus Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2019.02.013

[19] Bayraktar E, Yilmaz H. Molecular Detection and Clinical Aspects of Feline Herpesvirus-1, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus and Feline Leukemia Virus in Cats in Istanbul, Turkey. Pakistan Veterinary Journal. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29261/pakvetj/2020.005

[20] Tian J, Liu Y, Liu X, Sun X, Zhang J, Qu L. Feline Herpesvirus 1 US3 Blocks the Type I Interferon Signal Pathway by Targeting Interferon Regulatory Factor 3 Dimerization in a Kinase-Independent Manner. Journal of Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00047-18

[21] Niu J, Zhao H, Zhang S, Guo Y, Zhang Q, Bao D, et al.. Experimental Infection of Domestic Cats with Feline Herpesvirus-1 Strain CH-B Isolated from British Shorthair Cat. . 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-94561/v1

[22] Contreras ET, Hodgkins E, Tynes V, Beck A, Olea-Popelka F, Lappin M. Effect of a Pheromone on Stress‐Associated Reactivation of Feline Herpesvirus‐1 in Experimentally Inoculated Kittens. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.14894

[23] Lewin A, Kolb A, McLellan G, Bentley E, Bernard K, Newbury SP, et al.. Genomic, Recombinational and Phylogenetic Characterization of Global Feline Herpesvirus 1 Isolates. Virology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2018.03.018

[24] Baumworcel N, Pereira JdJ, Soares AM, Souza GN, Almosny N, Castro TX. Feline herpesvirus 1 viral load related to environmental factors in sheltered cats. Ciência Rural. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478CR20190067

[25] Townsend W, Jacobi S, Tai S, Kiupel M, Wise A, Maes R. Ocular and neural distribution of feline herpesvirus-1 during active and latent experimental infection in cats. BMC Veterinary Research. 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-9-185

[26] Wang H, Xu S, Cai B, Qiu W, Lu H, Tang Y. Highly efficient gene editing of Feline herpesvirus 1 using CRISPR/Cas9 combined with FACS. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1660446

[27] Yang M, Jiao Y, Li L, Yan Y, Fu Z, Liu Z, et al.. A potential dual protection vaccine: Recombinant feline herpesvirus-1 expressing feline parvovirus VP2 antigen.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109978

[28] Yang J, Li L, Xu F, Jia F. Development of a reporter feline herpesvirus-1 for antiviral screening assays. Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-024-01430-7

[29] Lee Y, Berrios-Vazquez G, Maes R, Kiupel M, Desmarets L, Nauwynck H, et al.. Development of immortalized feline respiratory epithelial cells in an air-liquid-interface culture system for feline herpesvirus-1 study. Virus Research. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2023.199063

[30] Zhang J, Li Z, Huang J, Chen S, Yin H, Tian J, et al.. miR-101 inhibits feline herpesvirus 1 replication by targeting cellular suppressor of cytokine signaling 5 (SOCS5).. Veterinary Microbiology. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2020.108707

[31] Zhang J, Li Z, Huang J, Yin H, Tian J, Qu L. miR-26a Inhibits Feline Herpesvirus 1 Replication by Targeting SOCS5 and Promoting Type I Interferon Signaling. Viruses. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12010002

[32] Spertus CB, Pennington M, Walle GRVd, Badanes Z, Judd BE, Mohammed H, et al.. Effects of orally administered raltegravir in cats with experimentally induced ocular and respiratory feline herpesvirus-1 infection.. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.80.5.490

[33] Wang H, Xue L, Wang L, Liu Y, Chen J, Sun Y, et al.. The quadruplex TaqMan MGB fluorescent quantitative PCR method for simultaneous detection of feline panleukopenia virus, feline herpesvirus 1, feline calicivirus and feline infectious peritonitis virus. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1581946

[34] Bergmann M, Speck S, Rieger A, Truyen U, Hartmann K. Antibody response to feline herpesvirus-1 vaccination in healthy adult cats. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X19845702

[35] Zirofsky D, Rekers W, Powell C, Hawley J, Veir JK, Lappin M. Feline Herpesvirus 1 and Mycoplasma spp. Conventional PCR Assay Results From Conjunctival Samples From Cats in Shelters With Suspected Acute Ocular Infections. Topics in Companion Animal Medicine. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.tcam.2018.05.001

[36] Yang J, Mei R, Sun K, Xu F, Jia F. Detection of neutralizing antibody to Feline herpesvirus type 1 in cat serum.. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology & Infectious Diseases. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2025.102419

[37] Mills EP, Liu C, Mironovich MA, Taylor CM, Luo M, Emelogu U, et al.. Relationship between the bacterial ocular surface microbiota and outcomes for cats with feline herpesvirus type 1 ocular surface disease.. Veterinary Ophthalmology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.13157

[38] Baumworcel N, Soares AM, Silva SB, Almeida NKO, Castro TX. Correlation between clinical signs of feline conjunctivitis and molecular detection of felid herpesvirus-1 , feline calicivirus , chlamydophila felis and mycoplasma felis in cats from shelters in Rio de Janeiro. . 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1678-4456.bjvras.2017.104588

[39] Baumworcel N, Soares A, Silva SB, Almeida NO, Castro TXd. Correlação entre sinais clínicos da conjuntivite felina e a detecção molecular de felid herpesvirus-1, feline calicivirus, chlamydophila felis e mycoplasma felis em gatos de abrigos no Rio de Janeiro. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/ISSN.1678-4456.BJVRAS.2017.104588

[40] Ledbetter E, Morgan A. Frequency and Characterization of Local Ocular Toxicity in Cats Treated With Topical Ophthalmic Cidofovir for Presumptive Feline Herpesvirus‐1 Infection. Veterinary Ophthalmology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.70046

[41] Ozkanlar Y, Ulaş N, Sozdutmaz I, Ozkanlar S. Clinical evaluation of antiviral combination treatment in cats with feline herpesvirus-1 infection.. Polish journal of veterinary sciences. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24425/pjvs.2023.148290

[42] Ledbetter E, Badanes Z, Chan RX, Donohue LK, Hayot NL, Harman R, et al.. Comparative Efficacy of Topical Ophthalmic Ganciclovir and Oral Famciclovir in Cats with Experimental Ocular Feline Herpesvirus-1 Epithelial Infection. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2022.0001

[43] Contreras ET, Olea-Popelka F, Wheat W, Dow S, Hawley J, Lappin M. Evaluation of liposome toll‐like receptor ligand complexes for non‐specific mucosal immunoprotection from feline herpesvirus‐1 infection. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15427

[44] Mazzei M, Vascellari M, Zanardello C, Melchiotti E, Vannini S, Forzan M, et al.. Quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and RNAscope in situ hybridization (RNA-ISH) as effective tools to diagnose feline herpesvirus-1-associated dermatitis.. Veterinary dermatology (Print). 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12787

[45] Thomasy S, Maggs D. A review of antiviral drugs and other compounds with activity against feline herpesvirus-1. Veterinary Ophthalmology. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.12375

[46] Nasisse M, Js G, Davidson MG, Sussman W, Clercq ED. In vitro susceptibility of feline herpesvirus-1 to vidarabine, idoxuridine, trifluridine, acyclovir, or bromovinyldeoxyuridine.. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 1989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.1989.50.01.158

[47] Yang M, Jiao Y, Yan Y, Fu Z, Li L, Liu Z, et al.. Recombinant feline herpesvirus-1 (FHV-1) expressing granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) exhibits enhanced protective efficacy in felines.. Virology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2024.110282

[48] Tang A, Zhu M, Zhu J, Zhang D, Zhu S, Meng C, et al.. The recombinant feline herpesvirus 1 expressing feline Calicivirus VP1 protein is safe and effective in cats.. Vaccine. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.126468

[49] Yang D, Park Y, Kim E, Lee H, Oh S, Hyun B. Immunogenicity of a new inactivated vaccine against feline panleukopenia virus, calicivirus, and herpesvirus-1 for cats. Korean Journal of Veterinary Research. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14405/kjvr.20220042

[50] Bradley A, Kinyon J, Frana T, Bolte D, Hyatt D, Lappin MR. Efficacy of Intranasal Administration of a Modified Live Feline Herpesvirus 1 and Feline Calicivirus Vaccine against Disease Caused by Bordetella bronchiseptica after Experimental Challenge. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2012.00982.x

[51] Cao N, Tang Z, Zhang X, Li W, Li B, Tian Y, et al.. Development and Application of a Triplex TaqMan Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assay for Simultaneous Detection of Feline Calicivirus, Feline Parvovirus, and Feline Herpesvirus 1. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.792322

[52] Wang J, Liu L, Wang J, Sun X, Yuan W. Recombinase Polymerase Amplification Assay, A Simple, Fast and Cost-Effective Alternative to Real Time PCR for Specific Detection of Feline Herpesvirus-1. PLoS ONE. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166903

[53] Maggs D, Lappin MR, Reif JS, Collins JK, Carman J, Dawson DA, et al.. Evaluation of serologic and viral detection methods for diagnosing feline herpesvirus-1 infection in cats with acute respiratory tract or chronic ocular disease.. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.1999.214.04.502

[54] Kikuiri A, Nishigaki H, Fujii H, Watanabe S, Kojima I, Morikawa S. In vitro antiviral efficacy of amenamevir against feline herpesvirus 1. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.25-0086