Ranaviruses in Amphibians

Overview and Taxonomy of Ranaviruses in Amphibians

Ranaviruses represent one of the most significant and emerging infectious disease threats to global amphibian biodiversity, constituting a genus within the family Iridoviridae that has garnered increasing attention from wildlife veterinarians, conservation biologists, and aquaculture specialists alike [3, 7, 11, 13]. As large, double-stranded DNA viruses, ranaviruses are classified within the subfamily Alphairidovirinae, which encompasses a group of pathogens that infect ectothermic vertebrates, namely fish, amphibians, and reptiles [4, 14, 23]. The genus Ranavirus itself contains a diverse and expanding array of viral species that have been implicated in mass mortality events, population declines, and even local extirpations across six continents, with mounting evidence suggesting that anthropogenic activities, particularly the international trade in live animals, have accelerated their global dissemination [8, 11, 32, 33]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has recognized the critical importance of these pathogens, and since 2009, ranavirus infections in amphibians have been classified as notifiable diseases, underscoring the need for standardized surveillance, reporting, and biosecurity measures at both national and international levels [3, 8, 24].

Taxonomic Hierarchy and Phylogenetic Framework

The taxonomic architecture of ranaviruses has been refined considerably through advances in genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analyses. At the family level, Iridoviridae is divided into two subfamilies: Betairidovirinae, which predominantly infects insects and other invertebrates, and Alphairidovirinae, which contains the genera Ranavirus, Megalocytivirus, and Lymphocystivirus, all of which target vertebrate hosts [11, 12, 27]. Within the genus Ranavirus, the type species is Frog virus 3 (FV3), which was first isolated from a leopard frog (Rana pipiens) in the United States in the 1960s and remains the most extensively characterized member of the genus from both genomic and pathogenic perspectives [1, 17, 23, 35]. The complete genome of FV3 is approximately 105–106 kilobase pairs in length, encoding roughly 95–100 open reading frames (ORFs), of which 26 constitute core genes conserved across the family Iridoviridae [17, 22, 27].

Phylogenomic analyses have revealed that ranaviruses infecting amphibians can be broadly categorized into several major clades or species complexes, the delineation of which carries profound implications for understanding host range, virulence, and evolutionary trajectories [12, 19, 27]. The primary clades relevant to amphibian hosts include the FV3-like viruses, the Common Midwife Toad Virus (CMTV)-like viruses, and the Ambystoma tigrinum virus (ATV)-like viruses. A fourth major group, the Epizootic Haematopoietic Necrosis Virus (EHNV)-like viruses, is predominantly associated with fish but has been documented to cross-infect amphibian species under certain conditions [12, 27]. Genomic comparisons demonstrate that FV3-like and CMTV-like ranaviruses share a recent common ancestor, with evidence of extensive recombination between these lineages in wild amphibian populations, particularly in North America and Europe [17, 22, 35]. Such recombination events are not merely evolutionary curiosities; they have been linked to the emergence of hybrid strains with altered virulence profiles, raising concerns about the potential for increased pathogenicity in naïve host populations [22, 35].

The taxonomic complexity is further compounded by the discovery of the tiger frog virus (TFV) clade, which is now recognized as a distinct sublineage within the broader FV3-like group. TFV was originally isolated from cultured tiger frogs (Hoplobatrachus tigerinus) in China and has subsequently been identified in a range of amphibian and fish species across Southeast Asia, including Thailand, as well as in reptiles from Oceania [2, 4, 25]. Full-genome sequencing of TFV isolates from Thailand and Africa has confirmed that these viruses form a monophyletic clade with high genomic similarity (99.8–100% identity in the major capsid protein gene) and are distinct from the classic North American FV3 strains [2, 4]. This phylogenetic structure suggests a complex history of viral trafficking, possibly mediated by the amphibian trade, and underscores the necessity for robust genomic surveillance to track the global movement of these pathogens [1, 2, 4].

Genomic Architecture and Molecular Taxonomy

The ranavirus genome is characterized by a high degree of methylation, a feature that distinguishes it from many other DNA viruses and that plays a critical role in viral replication and host interaction [27]. Studies on mandarin fish ranavirus (MRV) have demonstrated that genome methylation levels can reach approximately 16%, and that hypomethylation significantly impairs viral replication, suggesting an essential regulatory function for this epigenetic modification [27]. The genomic organization of ranaviruses is generally collinear within clades, but comparative analyses have identified distinct genomic arrangements, or locally collinear blocks, that can be used to classify isolates into five major groups based on genome architecture [28]. For instance, the fish-derived ranaviruses SCRaV and MSRaV, both isolated from perciform fishes, possess genomes of approximately 99–100 kilobase pairs containing 105 predicted ORFs, and they constitute a distinct genomic group separate from the FV3-like and CMTV-like amphibian viruses [28].

A critical tool for molecular taxonomy and diagnostics is the major capsid protein (MCP) gene, which is highly conserved across all ranaviruses and serves as the primary target for polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection methods [4, 5, 20, 31]. The MCP gene sequence is sufficiently variable to distinguish between major clades yet conserved enough to enable universal primer design, facilitating the development of rapid diagnostic assays such as recombinase-aided amplification combined with lateral flow dipsticks (RAA-LFD) and real-time fluorescence RAA, which can detect FV3-like viruses with limits of detection as low as 35 copies per microliter [5]. In addition to MCP, other genomic loci, including the DNA polymerase (DNApol) gene, the ribonucleotide reductase alpha and beta subunits (RNR-α and RNR-β), and the viral homolog of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 alpha (vIF-2α), are routinely employed for phylogenetic classification and have been instrumental in resolving relationships among isolates from diverse geographic regions [4, 19]. Notably, the vIF-2α gene exhibits length polymorphisms that correlate with host taxa; for example, some reptilian isolates possess truncated vIF-2α sequences, whereas amphibian isolates typically harbor the full-length gene, a feature that may reflect host-specific adaptations [19].

Host Range and Cross-Class Transmission

The genus Ranavirus is notorious for its exceptionally broad host range, which encompasses over 70 species of amphibians across at least 14 families, as well as numerous species of fish and reptiles [11, 12, 15]. This promiscuity is not merely a taxonomic curiosity; it has profound ecological and epidemiological consequences. Experimental transmission studies have unequivocally demonstrated that ranaviruses can be transmitted through water between different vertebrate classes. For instance, FV3-like ranaviruses shed by infected amphibian larvae (Cope’s gray treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis) can infect naïve turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans) and, conversely, infected turtles and fish can transmit the virus back to naïve amphibian larvae, establishing a multi-class reservoir system that facilitates year-round pathogen persistence in aquatic environments [34]. This finding is particularly alarming given that many ectothermic vertebrates, including turtles and fish, can harbor subclinical infections without exhibiting overt disease, thereby serving as cryptic reservoirs that sustain viral circulation even when susceptible amphibian populations are seasonally absent [11, 34].

Within amphibians specifically, susceptibility to ranavirus infection and the resultant disease (ranavirosis) varies dramatically among species, developmental stages, and populations [11, 13, 18]. Larval and metamorphic stages are generally considered the most vulnerable, often experiencing acute mortality rates exceeding 90% in epizootic events [18]. The wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus), for example, is highly susceptible, and outbreaks in constructed ponds have been linked to high host density, low water temperatures, and low zooplankton concentrations, factors that collectively increase host stress and viral exposure [18]. Conversely, some species, such as the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), often exhibit subclinical infections and can act as competent reservoirs, shedding virus into the environment without succumbing to disease [10, 30]. This differential susceptibility is hypothesized to reflect co-evolutionary history: species that have long been sympatric with ranaviruses may have evolved tolerance, whereas naïve populations, such as those in regions where ranaviruses are recently introduced, may suffer catastrophic mortality [11, 12].

The role of the American bullfrog as a global vector cannot be overstated. Invasive bullfrog populations in the southwestern United States, Chile, Japan, and Europe have been repeatedly documented as carriers of FV3-like ranaviruses, and their eradication from managed landscapes has been shown to co-extirpate the virus, providing a powerful demonstration of the link between invasive species management and pathogen control [10, 29, 30]. Furthermore, the amphibian trade, encompassing food, bait, and the pet industry, represents a primary conduit for the long-distance translocation of ranaviruses. Surveillance at Hong Kong International Airport, a major global hub for live amphibian shipments, revealed that 56.8% of cloacal swabs from exported animals tested positive for ranavirus DNA, and the transport water itself contained the virus, highlighting the risk of environmental contamination at ports of entry and disposal sites [33].

Evolutionary Dynamics and Emerging Lineages

The evolutionary history of ranaviruses is characterized by ongoing genetic exchange, positive selection, and host switching. Whole-genome analyses of FV3 isolates from Canadian amphibians have uncovered widespread recombination between FV3 and CMTV-like lineages, resulting in mosaic genomes that harbor genes from both parental clades [35]. These recombinants are not rare anomalies; they appear to be common in wild populations, and some recombinant strains exhibit enhanced virulence, likely due to the acquisition of CMTV-derived genes that modulate host immune responses [35]. The CMTV lineage itself is particularly concerning because of its association with severe, multispecies die-offs in European amphibians. In the Netherlands, a CMTV-like strain was first detected in 2010 and subsequently caused clustered mortality events involving approximately half of the native amphibian species, including the threatened spadefoot toad (Pelobates fuscus), with spatiotemporal modeling indicating a high probability of continued spread [36].

Similarly, in Spain, CMTV-like ranaviruses have devastated populations of the common midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans), and genomic analyses have detected signatures of positive selection acting on more than a quarter of ranavirus genes in these isolates, suggesting rapid adaptation to novel host environments [22, 36]. The interplay between viral evolution and host ecology is further exemplified by the Ambystoma tigrinum virus (ATV) clade, which is primarily associated with salamanders in North America. ATV is believed to have originated from a fish-infecting ancestor that underwent a host switch to urodeles, and its genome shows evidence of local adaptation among populations in the southwestern United States [12, 26]. However, attempts to identify specific genes under positive selection using gene-by-gene phylogenetic approaches have been inconclusive due to low bootstrap support in many ORFs, highlighting the need for more sophisticated analytical methods, such as population genomics and codon-based models of selection, to unravel the molecular basis of host adaptation [26].

Taxonomic Uncertainty and Future Directions

Despite significant progress, the taxonomy of ranaviruses remains in flux, driven by the discovery of novel isolates from under-sampled geographic regions and by the recognition that many previously described strains are likely recombinants or hybrids. For example, the recent report of endemic FV3-like ranaviruses (OKRV1 and OKRV2) in the Korean clawed salamander (Onychodactylus koreanus) has expanded the known distribution of these viruses in Asia and raised questions about the phylogenetic origin of Asian FV3-like strains [1]. Whole-genome comparisons revealed that OKRV1 and OKRV2 share 91.5% identity with Rana grylio virus (RGV) and 92.2% identity with Rana nigromaculata ranavirus (RNRV), but only 84.2% identity with soft-shelled turtle iridovirus (STIV), challenging previous assumptions that these Asian isolates were introduced via trade [1]. Instead, the data suggest that RGV and RNRV may be endemic to China, and that the evolutionary history of FV3-like ranaviruses in Asia is more complex than previously appreciated [1].

Similarly, the first molecular confirmation of ranavirus in Africa, obtained from frogs in Chad, has added another layer to the global phylogeographic picture. The Chad frog virus (CFV) forms a well-supported sister group to the TFV clade from Asia, indicating a deep evolutionary divergence that predates recent anthropogenic movements [4]. These findings underscore the urgency of expanding surveillance efforts into tropical regions, where amphibian diversity is highest and where ranaviruses have likely been under-detected [4, 6, 9, 16]. The development of standardized, validated molecular tools, such as multiplex qPCR assays capable of simultaneously detecting ranaviruses, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), and B. salamandrivorans (Bsal), will be essential for generating comparable data across studies and for enabling robust meta-analyses of pathogen distribution and co-infection dynamics [21].

In summary, the taxonomy and overview of ranaviruses in amphibians present a dynamic and rapidly evolving field of study. The genus encompasses a diverse array of genetically and ecologically distinct lineages, each with unique patterns of host range, virulence, and geographic distribution. The recognition of widespread recombination, host switching, and cryptic reservoirs has fundamentally altered our understanding of ranavirus epidemiology, shifting the paradigm from a simple one-host-one-pathogen model to a complex, multi-host, multi-pathogen system that spans vertebrate classes and continents. Continued genomic surveillance, coupled with experimental studies of host susceptibility and immune function, will be paramount for informing conservation strategies, trade regulations, and biosecurity protocols aimed at mitigating the impact of these formidable pathogens on global amphibian biodiversity.

Molecular Pathogenesis and Host-Transcriptome Reprogramming

The molecular pathogenesis of ranaviruses in amphibians represents a complex, multi-faceted interplay between viral evasion strategies and host cellular reprogramming, orchestrated at the level of gene expression, metabolic flux, and post-transcriptional regulation. Ranaviruses, large double-stranded DNA viruses of the family Iridoviridae, subfamily Alphairidovirinae, have evolved sophisticated mechanisms to subvert host cellular machinery, establishing a permissive environment for replication while simultaneously dismantling antiviral defenses [7, 11, 23]. This section provides an exhaustive dissection of the molecular events underpinning ranavirus infection, from initial host cell engagement to the profound reprogramming of the transcriptome, drawing upon the latest high-resolution transcriptomic, genomic, and immunological studies.

Early Molecular Events and Virulence Factor Arsenal

The infectious cycle begins with viral entry, a process that, while not fully elucidated for all ranavirus strains, is known to involve interactions with host cell surface receptors, leading to internalization, likely via clathrin-mediated endocytosis or macropinocytosis [20]. Once inside the cytoplasm, the viral core is uncoated, and immediate-early gene transcription initiates, driven by the host RNA polymerase II [27]. The ranavirus genome, typically ranging from 99 to 106 kb and encoding over 90-100 open reading frames (ORFs), is notable for its high degree of cytosine methylation, a feature less common among other large DNA viruses [27, 35]. This genomic methylation is not merely a passive characteristic; studies on mandarin fish ranavirus (MRV) demonstrate that hypomethylation of the viral genome is detrimental to viral replication, suggesting that methylation plays a functional, pro-viral role, potentially in evading host restriction factors or regulating gene expression kinetics [27, 28]. Indeed, comparative genomics of amphibian-like ranaviruses reveals that this methylation signature is a conserved hallmark, distinguishing them from other iridoviruses like Singapore grouper iridovirus (SGIV) [27].

A critical arsenal of viral proteins is deployed to dismantle the host's innate immune response. Ranaviruses encode a viral homolog of the alpha subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (vIF-2α), which acts as a potent decoy to inhibit the host’s protein kinase R (PKR)-mediated shutoff of translation, a key antiviral mechanism [19, 23]. Additionally, a viral caspase activation and recruitment domain (vCARD) protein is expressed to interfere with the formation of the apoptosome, thereby blocking apoptosis and allowing the virus to complete its replication cycle without triggering premature cell death [14, 23]. The presence and diversity of these immune evasion genes vary across isolates, with significant implications for virulence. For instance, while most amphibian-like ranaviruses possess a full-length vIF-2α gene, several reptilian isolates have truncated versions, which may correlate with altered host range and pathogenicity [19]. The horizontal transfer and recombination of these virulence genes, particularly between Frog Virus 3 (FV3)-like and Common Midwife Toad Virus (CMTV)-like lineages, has been documented in wild populations, generating novel recombinant strains with enhanced pathogenicity [35, 36]. This genomic fluidity, driven by recombination breakpoints frequently located within ORFs, generates chimeric proteins that may confer a selective advantage in new host environments or under distinct ecological pressures [22, 35].

Host-Transcriptome Reprogramming: A Coordinated Hijacking of Cellular Machinery

The most striking evidence of ranavirus molecular pathogenesis is the profound reprogramming of the host transcriptome. High-throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) of amphibian cell lines and tissues following infection has revealed a temporally dynamic and systematically orchestrated suppression of host defenses and activation of pro-viral metabolic pathways [37, 38, 42]. A conserved transcriptional signature across diverse ranavirus strains (e.g., Andrias davidianus ranavirus [ADRV], Rana grylio virus [RGV], and Siniperca chuatsi ranavirus [SCRaV]) includes the profound downregulation of immediate early growth response genes, such as Egr1 (early growth response protein 1), and the dual specificity phosphatase Dusp2 [37, 38]. Egr1 is a master transcription factor regulating immune and inflammatory responses; its suppression is a critical viral strategy to dampen the host's capacity to initiate an effective antiviral state. Concurrently, there is a robust upregulation of the oncogene MYC, which serves to drive cellular proliferation and metabolic anabolism, creating a cellular environment rich in nucleotides and amino acids essential for viral genome replication [37].

Metabolic reprogramming is a cornerstone of ranavirus pathogenesis. Transcriptomic profiling consistently reveals a coordinated shift from oxidative phosphorylation to aerobic glycolysis, a phenomenon known as the Warburg effect, which is a hallmark of many viral infections. Specifically, there is a systemic upregulation of glycolytic enzymes (e.g., hexokinase, phosphofructokinase, pyruvate kinase) and a concomitant suppression of gluconeogenic enzymes [37]. This metabolic switch is not merely a passive consequence of infection but is actively induced by the virus through the downregulation of the PI3K-AKT and MAPK signaling pathways [38]. The suppression of these pathways, while seemingly counterintuitive for a virus that needs to promote cell survival, is likely a targeted strategy to inhibit the translation of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) and other antiviral proteins whose expression is dependent on these signaling cascades. The net effect is a metabolic state optimized for rapid ATP production and biosynthesis of macromolecules, diverted to fuel the viral factory [37, 38].

The host’s immune signaling pathways are systematically dismantled at the transcript level. The downregulation of PI3K-AKT and MAPK pathways is a central event, directly impacting cell growth, biological processes, and apoptosis [38]. Furthermore, specific strain-dependent immunomodulatory signatures have been identified. For example, infection with ADRV leads to the upregulation of phagosome-related genes, potentially as a host attempt to clear viral particles or, conversely, as a viral mechanism to exploit phagocytic machinery for entry or dissemination [38]. In contrast, RGV infection specifically upregulates the Junctional Adhesion Molecule (JAM2) and the leukocyte transendothelial migration pathway, suggesting a specific strategy to disrupt endothelial integrity and contribute to the hemorrhagic diathesis characteristic of ranavirosis [38]. Similarly, SCRaV infection triggers the upregulation of Fc gamma R-mediated phagocytosis, hinting at an attempted but subverted humoral immune response [38].

Alternative Splicing and Post-Transcriptional Regulation

Ranaviruses exert control beyond the level of transcription initiation. A significant and underappreciated facet of their pathogenesis is the manipulation of alternative splicing. Transcriptomic analyses reveal that ranavirus infection dramatically elevates the frequency of alternative splicing events, with skipped exon (SE) events being the most predominant [37]. The maximal divergence in splicing patterns is observed at 12 hours post-infection, coinciding with the peak of viral DNA replication [37]. This global perturbation of the spliceosome machinery can lead to the production of non-functional or dominant-negative isoforms of host proteins involved in immunity, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis. For instance, the splicing patterns of pre-mRNAs encoding components of the T-cell receptor signaling complex or the interferon pathway may be altered, rendering the host incapable of mounting a coordinated adaptive immune response.

Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are also emerging as critical players in the host-pathogen molecular dialogue. Field studies of wild common frogs (Rana temporaria) with a history of ranaviral disease have identified a suite of 407 differentially expressed transcripts in populations comparing those with and without disease history [42]. A striking feature of this dataset is the large proportion of potential non-coding RNA transcripts, providing the first evidence that lncRNAs may play a pivotal role in the amphibian response to ranavirus, likely through the regulation of chromatin architecture and transcriptional silencing at distant genomic loci [42]. This suggests that the cellular reprogramming induced by ranaviruses is not limited to protein-coding genes but extends to the complex regulatory RNA networks that orchestrate the entire cellular response to stress and infection.

The Role of Macrophages and the Microbiome in Viral Persistence and Reactivation

A central, yet enigmatic, aspect of ranavirus pathogenesis is the establishment of a quiescent or persistent state in clinically normal, asymptomatic carriers, a phenomenon particularly well-documented in adult amphibians and reptiles [11, 32, 34]. Research using the Xenopus laevis model has identified peritoneal macrophages as the primary cellular reservoir for this latent infection [23, 43]. These cells can harbor the virus in a transcriptionally silent, non-replicating state for extended periods, evading immune detection. The molecular trigger for reactivation from this quiescent state has been elegantly elucidated. Stimulation of Toll-like receptor 5 (TLR5) by bacterial flagellin, a common product of gram-negative bacteria, is sufficient and necessary to induce viral reactivation in these latent macrophages [43]. This finding establishes a mechanistic link between secondary bacterial infections, alterations in the host microbiome, or environmental stressors that cause bacterial translocation (e.g., pollution, temperature stress) and the sudden, explosive outbreaks of ranavirosis observed in the wild [43].

The virulence of a ranavirus strain, and consequently the severity of transcriptome reprogramming, is heavily influenced by the host species and developmental stage. For instance, the tiger frog virus (TFV), an FV3-like strain, causes high mortality (71%) in East Asian bullfrog (Hoplobatrachus rugulosus) tadpoles, while other species at the same life stage may be more resistant [25]. Experimental challenges demonstrate that tadpoles are generally far more susceptible than adults, a phenomenon linked to the incomplete development of the adaptive immune system and the differing transcriptional landscape of the larval immune cells [11, 13]. The transcriptomic response in tadpoles is often characterized by a more profound downregulation of antigen presentation machinery (MHC class I and II) and a less robust interferon response compared to adults, explaining their vulnerability [14, 42].

Furthermore, the interaction between ranaviruses and co-infecting pathogens, such as the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), adds another layer of complexity. Co-infection is common in nature, with studies in the Peruvian Andes and North America reporting high rates of dual positivity [6, 16, 40]. While experimental evidence suggests that single infection with one pathogen does not necessarily increase the probability of co-infection in adults, the presence of Bd can alter the host transcriptome in ways that may either suppress or enhance ranavirus replication, depending on the temperature and specific host-pathogen combination [6, 39, 41]. At elevated temperatures (e.g., 30°C), which may be suboptimal for the pathogen but permissive for host immune function, both Bd and ranavirus prevalence and infection intensity can decrease, highlighting the critical role of environmental context in shaping molecular pathogenesis [41]. The unprecedented scale of transcriptome reprogramming, affecting metabolism, splicing, immune signaling, and non-coding RNA networks, solidifies ranaviruses as master manipulators of the amphibian host cell, a capacity that underpins their global emergence and devastating impact on biodiversity, a pathogen that the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) considers notifiable due to its economic and conservation significance [8, 11].

Epidemiology and Global Emergence of Frog Virus 3 (FV3)-like Strains

The emergence of Frog Virus 3 (FV3)-like ranaviruses represents one of the most significant virological threats to global amphibian biodiversity, with profound implications for aquaculture, wildlife conservation, and ecosystem health. FV3, the type species of the genus Ranavirus within the family Iridoviridae, has transitioned from a relatively obscure pathogen to a globally recognized agent of mass mortality events, population declines, and potential extirpation of susceptible amphibian populations [7, 11, 52]. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has recognized ranaviral disease as a notifiable infection in amphibians, underscoring its economic and ecological importance [8, 24]. Understanding the epidemiology and global emergence of FV3-like strains requires a comprehensive analysis of their phylogenetic origins, geographic distribution, host range, transmission dynamics, and the anthropogenic factors driving their dissemination.

Phylogenetic Origins and Global Lineage Structure

The phylogenetic architecture of FV3-like ranaviruses reveals a complex evolutionary history characterized by intercontinental dispersal, host switching, and extensive genomic recombination. Comprehensive genomic analyses have delineated distinct FV3-like clades that correlate with geographic origin and host taxonomy. The New World FV3-like clade, predominantly circulating in North America, forms a sister group to the Asian FV3-like clade, which includes isolates from China, Korea, Thailand, and neighboring regions [1]. This fundamental phylogenetic split suggests an ancient divergence, potentially predating anthropogenic-mediated dispersal, followed by independent evolution on separate continental landmasses.

Within Asia, the discovery of endemic FV3-like ranaviruses in the Korean clawed salamander (Onychodactylus koreanus) has provided critical insights into the origins of these pathogens. Whole-genome sequencing of two isolates, designated Onychodactylus koreanus ranavirus 1 and 2 (OKRV1 and OKRV2), revealed high nucleotide identity with Rana grylio virus (RGV, 91.5%) and Rana nigromaculata ranavirus (RNRV, 92.2%), but substantially lower identity with soft-shelled turtle iridovirus (STIV, 84.2%) [1]. Phylogenomic analyses placed OKRV1 and OKRV2 within a monophyletic clade comprising previously known Asian FV3-like ranaviruses, strongly suggesting that RGV and RNRV are not recent introductions but rather endemic strains native to East Asia [1]. This finding challenges earlier speculation that Asian FV3-like viruses originated from North American sources and instead supports a model of long-standing endemicity with subsequent regional diversification.

The African continent, long considered a significant gap in ranavirus surveillance, has yielded molecular evidence of FV3-like viruses that further complicates the global phylogeographic picture. The first molecular confirmation of ranavirus in Africa came from amphibians sampled in Chad, where partial major capsid protein (MCP) gene sequences from 25 of 160 (16%) frogs demonstrated >98% similarity to FV3-like sequences [4]. Full genome sequencing of the Chad frog virus (CFV) revealed it forms a well-supported sister group to the tiger frog virus (TFV) isolates previously characterized from Asia [4]. This phylogenetic relationship suggests either a relatively recent introduction of Asian FV3-like strains into Africa, potentially through the international trade in amphibians, or an ancient connection that has since been obscured by subsequent diversification. The detection of ranavirus in 17% of Hoplobatrachus occipitalis and 17% of Ptychadena spp. indicates that FV3-like viruses are established in West African amphibian communities, with prevalence rates comparable to those observed in endemic regions elsewhere [4].

Geographic Distribution and Continental Patterns of Emergence

The global distribution of FV3-like ranaviruses has expanded dramatically over the past three decades, with confirmed reports now spanning six continents [27, 52]. However, the intensity of surveillance and the quality of reporting vary considerably across regions, creating significant knowledge gaps that hinder comprehensive epidemiological assessment.

North America represents the most intensively studied region for FV3-like ranaviruses, with documented infections in over 40 species of amphibians and at least eight species of reptiles in the United States, and nine amphibian and two reptile species in Canada [3]. The emergence of FV3 in Canada appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon, with phylogenetic analyses suggesting a contemporary origin (<100 years), likely linked to the onset of international amphibian trade [35]. Whole-genome sequencing of 18 FV3 isolates from Canadian frogs revealed widespread recombination between FV3 and common midwife toad virus (CMTV), generating novel genomic arrangements that may confer enhanced virulence [35]. The detection of FV3-like strains in a wild snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Ontario, representing the first Canadian reptile mortality event, demonstrated interclass transmission potential, with the reptile isolate sharing 99.71% genome-wide nucleotide identity with a wild-type FV3 from a Northern leopard frog [17]. This finding underscores the permeability of taxonomic barriers in FV3 epidemiology.

In the United States, landscape-scale studies have identified key environmental drivers of FV3 prevalence. Analysis of constructed ponds in New York revealed that high infection prevalence in wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) and green frogs (Lithobates clamitans) was best predicted by low water temperature, high host density, low zooplankton concentrations, and host developmental stages approaching metamorphosis [18]. These findings highlight the multifactorial nature of FV3 emergence, where abiotic conditions interact with host population dynamics to create windows of vulnerability. The role of invasive species in amplifying FV3 transmission has been quantitatively demonstrated in the southwestern USA and Sonora, Mexico, where environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling revealed that ranaviruses occurred at 33% of sites occupied exclusively by invasive American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), compared to only 3% of sites with only native amphibians [10]. This 11-fold increase in pathogen occurrence probability at bullfrog-only sites provides compelling evidence that invasive species function as pathogen reservoirs and transmission foci.

Central and South America have emerged as critical frontiers in FV3 surveillance, with recent detections challenging previous assumptions about pathogen distribution in tropical ecosystems. In Costa Rica, quantitative PCR screening of 243 wild amphibians across eight sites detected ranavirus in 16.3% of individuals, spanning five of eight sites and broad climatic zones [16]. Notably, infection was detected in highly threatened species persisting at low population sizes after chytridiomycosis-related declines, raising concerns about additive or synergistic mortality risks [16]. The first report of ranavirus in Colombia identified infections in 14 individuals from eight localities, representing five native frog genera (Osornophryne, Pristimantis, Leptodactylus) and the invasive American bullfrog [9]. Co-infection with Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) was detected in one bullfrog specimen, highlighting the potential for pathogen interactions in tropical amphibian communities [9].

In the Peruvian Andes, a biodiversity hotspot where Bd has been associated with amphibian extinctions, co-infection with ranavirus was documented in 30% of stream-dwelling frogs and 49% of harvested Telmatobius frogs [6]. The median viral loads in co-infected individuals (10^2.3 copies) were comparable to those in single infections, suggesting that co-infection does not necessarily amplify pathogen replication in adult frogs [6]. However, the absence of data from the most susceptible larval and metamorphic life stages represents a critical gap in understanding the population-level consequences of co-infection.

Brazilian Atlantic Forest fragments have yielded some of the highest prevalence rates reported globally, with an overall ranavirus prevalence of 60% across 203 anurans sampled from five sites [49]. Viral DNA was detected in 3 of 5 sites, and eDNA analysis of pond water confirmed environmental contamination, indicating that FV3-like viruses are widespread and prevalent in these fragmented landscapes [49]. The Brazilian bullfrog farming industry, which is a major global producer, has been identified as a potential source of pathogen pollution, with high prevalence of both Bd and ranavirus documented in farmed populations [24]. The lack of effective regulation and biosecurity measures in Brazilian bullfrog aquaculture poses a dual threat: economic losses to producers and ecological risks to native amphibian communities through pathogen spillover [24].

Europe has experienced a dramatic emergence of CMTV-like ranaviruses, which are closely related to FV3 but form a distinct phylogenetic lineage with potentially enhanced virulence. The Netherlands has been a focal point for CMTV emergence, with the first detection in Dutch wildlife occurring in 2010, followed by rapid spatial expansion [36]. Between 2011 and 2014, ranavirus-associated mortality events were confirmed at 18 of 52 investigated sites (35%), initially concentrated near the index site but subsequently spreading to new locations [36]. Phylogenetic characterization revealed that a single CMTV-like strain was responsible for clustered massive outbreaks in the northern provinces, while phylogenetically distinct CMTV-like viruses emerged independently in the south [36]. Spatiotemporal modeling estimated a discrete reproductive power of 0.35 for this outbreak, indicating a high probability of continued spread to new sites [36]. The infection of approximately half of native amphibian species, including the threatened spadefoot toad (Pelobates fuscus), underscores the conservation significance of this emergence event.

In contrast, surveillance in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein) from 2022-2025 failed to detect ranavirus in 187 amphibian carcasses, despite the presence of other pathogens such as bufonid herpesvirus 1 (BfHV1) in 48.6% of common toads and ranid herpesvirus 3 (RaHV3) in 23.6% of common frogs [45]. This absence may reflect genuine low prevalence, seasonal variation in detection probability, or the limitations of carcass-based surveillance, which is biased toward detecting pathogens that cause rapid mortality [45]. Similarly, extensive sampling in Greece (225 samples from 14 species across 17 locations) yielded no ranavirus-positive individuals, despite the detection of Bd in four new localities [46]. These negative findings are valuable for establishing baseline prevalence estimates and identifying regions where FV3-like viruses have not yet become established.

Asia harbors a diverse assemblage of FV3-like ranaviruses, with evidence of both endemic circulation and anthropogenic introduction. The characterization of eight ranavirus isolates from cultured fish and amphibians in Thailand revealed that all belonged to a TFV subclade within the larger FV3 clade [2]. Pairwise genetic comparisons of complete MCP coding sequences demonstrated 99.8-100% identity to TFV isolated from diseased tiger frogs in China, with slightly lower identity (99.3-99.4%) to Wamena virus (WV) from green tree pythons illegally exported from Papua New Guinea [2]. This genetic continuity across Southeast Asia and Oceania suggests that TFV has been disseminated through regional trade networks, with cultured fish and amphibians serving as vectors for pathogen spread [2]. The experimental confirmation that TFV causes lethal disease in East Asian bullfrog (Hoplobatrachus rugulosus) tadpoles, with 71% mortality at high viral doses (5 × 10^6 TCID50/mL), validates the pathogenic potential of these strains in commercially important species [25].

In Japan, the first report of ranavirus infection in captive eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) at a breeding facility demonstrated the vulnerability of captive reptile populations to FV3-like viruses [50]. Of 12 box turtles housed in a mixed-species outdoor pen, all six eastern box turtles exhibited clinical signs, with three fatalities [50]. Partial genome sequencing identified a strain similar to FV3, and electron microscopy confirmed cytoplasmic ranavirus-like particles within necrotic spleen cells [50]. This outbreak highlights the risk of FV3 transmission within captive collections and the potential for spillover into native herpetofauna.

Australia presents a unique epidemiological scenario, with evidence of ranavirus circulation in wild lizard populations but apparent absence in freshwater turtles. Molecular screening of 42 wild lizards from northern Queensland and 83 captive lizards detected ranaviral DNA in 78.6% of wild and 36.1% of captive individuals, representing the first molecular evidence of ranavirus in Australian lizards [44]. However, a concurrent survey of 397 pooled blood samples from six Australian freshwater turtle species collected between 2014 and 2019 failed to detect any ranaviral DNA, despite historical serologic evidence of antiranaviral antibodies [51]. This discrepancy may reflect low viral prevalence during the sampling period, survivorship bias, or age class bias in sampling [51]. The absence of ranavirus detection in Australian freshwater turtles, which belong to the suborder Pleurodira, contrasts with the high prevalence observed in cryptodiran turtles elsewhere and may indicate fundamental differences in susceptibility or exposure.

Africa remains the least characterized continent for FV3-like ranaviruses, but the Chad findings represent a critical first step in filling this knowledge gap [4]. The detection of ranavirus in 16% of sampled frogs, with sequences most similar to TFV, suggests that FV3-like viruses are established in West African amphibian communities [4]. The absence of clinical disease or mortality events in the sampled populations raises questions about the virulence of these strains and the potential for subclinical carrier states. Given the extensive amphibian diversity in Africa and the increasing pressure from habitat loss and climate change, the introduction of highly virulent FV3-like strains could have catastrophic consequences for naïve populations.

Host Range and Taxonomic Breadth

The host range of FV3-like ranaviruses is remarkably broad, encompassing at least 14 families and over 70 individual species of amphibians, with documented infections in reptiles and fish as well [11, 12]. This taxonomic promiscuity is a defining feature of FV3-like viruses and a key factor in their emergence as global pathogens. Experimental transmission studies have demonstrated that FV3 can be transmitted through water among ectothermic vertebrate classes, with infected gray treefrog larvae transmitting ranavirus to naïve conspecifics (60% infection) and turtles (30% infection), while infected turtles and fish transmitted ranavirus to 10-50% of naïve larval amphibians [34]. Critically, infected turtles and fish did not experience mortality, establishing them as potential reservoir hosts capable of maintaining the pathogen in aquatic ecosystems when highly susceptible amphibian hosts are absent due to seasonal fluctuations [34].

The role of reptiles as reservoirs and vectors for FV3-like viruses has received increasing attention. Over 12 families of reptiles are now known to be susceptible to ranaviral infection, with turtles being the most commonly reported group [15]. The detection of ranavirus in hatchling eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) with no observed disease suggests the possibility of vertical transmission, although the precise mode (transovarial vs. trans-shell) remains to be determined [48]. In Virginia, longitudinal sampling of aquatic turtles revealed a dramatic decline in ranavirus prevalence over a decade, from 23.8% in Eastern Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta picta) in 2010 to trace amounts (2.8%) in Common Musk Turtles (Sternotherus odoratus) in 2021-2022 [53]. The Ct values from positive samples corresponded to approximately one copy of ranavirus DNA per microliter, likely reflecting environmental contamination rather than active infection [53]. This temporal variability underscores the importance of multi-year sampling to accurately characterize ranavirus dynamics in reservoir populations.

Invasive species, particularly the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), have been implicated as key drivers of FV3 emergence globally. The American bullfrog is a competent reservoir host that can maintain high viral loads without clinical disease, facilitating pathogen spillover into native amphibian communities [10, 30]. In Chile, surveillance across a 2,500 km latitudinal gradient detected ranavirus only in invasive Xenopus laevis populations in central Chile, with no evidence of infection in native amphibian or fish species [30]. Phylogenetic analysis showed 100% similarity with FV3, suggesting that the virus entered Chile through infected X. laevis, which appears to act as a competent reservoir host and may contribute to local spread as it invades new areas [30]. The coextirpation of ranavirus with invasive American bullfrogs following landscape-scale eradication efforts in Arizona provides strong experimental evidence that invasive species management can simultaneously reduce pathogen risk for imperiled native species [29].

Transmission Dynamics and Environmental Persistence

FV3-like ranaviruses exhibit multiple transmission routes that contribute to their epidemiological success. Direct transmission occurs through contact with infected individuals, ingestion of infected tissue, or exposure to contaminated water [11, 32]. Indirect transmission via fomites, including contaminated equipment, clothing, and watercraft, has been documented, with 9.4% of boats sampled during a Spanish canoe championship testing positive for ranavirus DNA [47]. This finding provides the first evidence that human-related water sports could contribute to the translocation of ranaviruses, justifying the implementation of public disinfecting stations in areas with high water-sport traffic [47].

Water is an effective transmission medium, and FV3 can survive outside the host for significant durations, with survival influenced by temperature, UV radiation, and water chemistry [11]. The detection of ranavirus in eDNA samples from ponds in Brazil and the United States confirms that environmental contamination is a persistent source of infection [10, 49]. The role of zooplankton in modulating transmission dynamics has been quantified in constructed pond systems, where low zooplankton concentrations were associated with higher ranavirus prevalence, potentially due to reduced predation on viral particles or decreased competition for resources among tadpoles [18].

The international trade in live amphibians represents a major pathway for long-distance dispersal of FV3-like viruses. Surveillance of commercial shipments at Hong Kong International Airport detected ranavirus in 56.8% of amphibians, with transport water also testing positive, demonstrating the risk of pathogen pollution through disposal of untreated wastewater [33]. The WOAH has recognized the importance of this trade pathway, and ranaviral infection is now a notifiable disease in amphibians [8]. However, reporting remains inconsistent, with a 2-year lag between detection and publication in the scientific literature, and limited overlap between reports submitted to the WOAH and those published in peer-reviewed journals [8].

Co-infection Dynamics and Pathogen Interactions

FV3-like ranaviruses frequently co-occur with other amphibian pathogens, particularly the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), creating complex infection dynamics that can influence disease outcomes. In the Peruvian Andes, co-infection occurred in 30% of stream-dwelling frogs and 49% of harvested Telmatobius frogs, with median Bd and ranavirus loads of 10^1.2 and 10

Diagnostics and Molecular Detection of Ranavirus Infections

The accurate and timely detection of ranavirus infections forms the cornerstone of both clinical diagnostics and epidemiological surveillance, yet the field remains characterized by a patchwork of methodologies that reflect the diverse contexts, from diagnostic laboratories to field-based wildlife surveys and international trade monitoring, in which these pathogens are encountered. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly OIE) has recognized the critical importance of standardized detection protocols by designating ranavirus infections as notifiable in amphibians since 2009, a status that underscores the pathogen’s capacity for transboundary spread and its significant economic and conservation implications [3, 8, 11]. Despite this regulatory framework, diagnostic approaches remain poorly harmonized, with a pronounced reliance on molecular methods and a concerning underreporting of negative findings that collectively hamper the construction of a comprehensive global disease information database [8]. This section provides an exhaustive examination of the diagnostic armamentarium available for ranavirus detection, critically evaluating the strengths, limitations, and appropriate applications of each approach within the context of amphibian health management.

Molecular Detection: Quantitative and Conventional PCR Assays

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in its various iterations constitutes the most widely employed diagnostic modality for ranavirus detection, with the major capsid protein (MCP) gene serving as the predominant molecular target across the vast majority of published studies [4, 5, 20, 31, 32]. The MCP gene is highly conserved among ranaviruses, enabling broad detection across diverse viral strains, yet it retains sufficient variability to allow for phylogenetic discrimination. The development of quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) assays targeting the MCP gene has represented a transformative advance, offering not merely the binary presence-or-absence determination of conventional end-point PCR but also the capacity to quantify viral load with exquisite sensitivity. Leung and colleagues [31] developed a particularly robust qPCR approach that achieved a lower limit of detection of 4.23 plasmid standard copies per reaction, with exceptional reproducibility across a dynamic range spanning from 3 to 3 × 10⁸ standard copies per reaction. This assay demonstrated 100% comparative sensitivity and specificity when validated against an established end-point PCR protocol using samples from both known positive and negative populations [31]. The analytical utility of qPCR extends beyond simple detection; the capacity to estimate viral load normalized against host DNA content has proven invaluable for understanding infection dynamics. The same research group pioneered a normalization strategy employing a single-copy, ultra-conserved non-coding element (UCNE) target present in all vertebrates, enabling standardized viral load comparisons across diverse amphibian species and facilitating investigations into how infection intensity correlates with host susceptibility, environmental conditions, and disease outcomes [31].

The application of qPCR in field surveillance has yielded remarkable insights into the global distribution and epidemiology of ranaviruses. Surveys employing this technology have documented ranavirus infection across six continents, revealing infection prevalence rates that vary dramatically by geographic region, host species, and environmental context. In the Colombian Andes, for instance, Flechas and colleagues [9] utilized qPCR and end-point PCR to detect ranavirus in 14 of 274 sampled individuals representing six frog species across eight localities, marking the first confirmation of these pathogens in Colombia and establishing the presence of ranavirus in the invasive American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) as a potential vector for broader dissemination. Similarly, Whitfield and colleagues [16] employed qPCR to document ranavirus in 16.3% of 243 wild amphibians sampled across eight sites in Costa Rica, detecting evidence of infection at five sites and demonstrating that the pathogen is spatially widespread and affects a broad taxonomic range of hosts in the absence of overt mortality events. The capacity of qPCR to detect subclinical infections, individuals harboring the virus without displaying disease signs, has been particularly important for understanding the role of reservoir hosts in ranavirus ecology. Studies of reptiles have revealed that turtles, in particular, can carry low-level ranavirus infections that are detectable only through sensitive molecular methods. Marcer and colleagues [53] used qPCR to detect trace amounts of ranavirus DNA in 2.8% of Common Musk Turtles (Sternotherus odoratus) at a Virginia site where the pathogen had previously been common, although the authors cautioned that the extremely low cycle threshold values, corresponding to approximately one copy of ranavirus DNA per microliter, might reflect environmental contamination rather than true infection. This observation highlights a critical consideration in qPCR-based diagnostics: the distinction between active infection and passive environmental contamination, particularly when sampling from aquatic habitats where free viral particles may persist for extended periods.

The choice between conventional end-point PCR and qPCR depends on the specific diagnostic question being addressed. For surveillance studies seeking to estimate population-level prevalence, qPCR offers superior sensitivity and the additional benefit of quantification. However, for initial screening in resource-limited settings or when processing large numbers of samples during mortality event investigations, conventional PCR may suffice. Box and colleagues [4] employed a conventional PCR assay targeting the MCP gene to achieve the first molecular confirmation of ranavirus infection in Africa, detecting the virus in 25 of 160 frogs (16%) sampled in Chad. Subsequent sequencing of additional gene targets, including DNA polymerase (DNApol), ribonucleotide reductase alpha and beta subunits (RNR-α, RNR-β), enabled the detailed phylogenetic placement of the Chad frog virus (CFV) as a sister group to the tiger frog virus (TFV) clade previously known only from Asia, demonstrating the critical role of molecular characterization in understanding viral phylogeography [4]. The multi-gene sequencing approach employed in this study exemplifies the current best practice for molecular characterization of novel ranavirus detections: while MCP sequencing provides genus-level confirmation, the inclusion of additional loci enhances phylogenetic resolution and facilitates the discrimination of closely related viral lineages.

Advanced Molecular Techniques: Isothermal Amplification and Point-of-Care Diagnostics

The development of isothermal amplification technologies has addressed a critical gap in ranavirus diagnostics: the need for rapid, field-deployable assays that do not require the sophisticated thermal cycling equipment essential for PCR. The recombinase-aided amplification (RAA) platform, when coupled with lateral flow dipstick (LFD) readout or real-time fluorescence detection, has emerged as a particularly promising approach [5]. Gui and colleagues [5] designed universal primers and a probe targeting the conserved MCP region of Frog virus 3-like viruses and established both RAA-LFD and real-time fluorescence RAA (RF-RAA) assays. The RAA-LFD assay achieved a limit of detection of 35.4 copies/μL following a 15-minute amplification at 35°C, while the RF-RAA assay demonstrated a limit of detection of 3.54 × 10² copies/μL over 17-20 minutes at 39°C [5]. When tested on 53 clinical samples from confirmed FV3-like virus infections, both assays showed complete concordance with results obtained from real-time PCR, validating their utility as alternatives for point-of-care testing. The practical advantages of these technologies for field diagnostics are substantial: the elimination of thermocycling requirements, the rapid turnaround time, and the visual readout of lateral flow strips make these assays suitable for use in remote field settings where laboratory infrastructure is unavailable. The establishment of RAA-based diagnostics for ranaviruses represents the first application of this technology to FV3-like viruses and holds promise for enhancing surveillance capacity in regions with limited laboratory resources, including many of the tropical and developing countries where ranavirus emergence poses the greatest conservation threats.

Histopathology and In Situ Hybridization: Morphological Confirmation of Infection

Despite the prevalence of molecular methods, histopathological examination remains an indispensable component of ranavirus diagnostics, particularly during mortality event investigations where the demonstration of characteristic lesions provides crucial evidence of disease causation. The pathological hallmarks of ranavirus infection are well-established: necrosis of hematopoietic tissues, vascular endothelium, and epithelial cells, often accompanied by hemorrhage and edema [11, 20]. The identification of intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies, basophilic or eosinophilic structures within the cytoplasm of infected cells, is considered a highly suggestive finding, although the absence of these inclusions does not rule out ranaviral disease. Tamukai and colleagues [50] documented a ranavirus outbreak in captive eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) in Japan where multifocal necrosis of the spleen and liver was evident, yet no intracytoplasmic inclusions were detected in any affected tissues, underscoring the importance of integrating histopathology with other diagnostic modalities. The development of immunohistochemical techniques has enhanced the sensitivity and specificity of histopathological diagnosis, enabling the direct visualization of viral antigens within tissue sections. Rijks and colleagues [36] employed immunohistochemistry in their investigation of an ongoing ranavirus epidemic in amphibians in the Netherlands, successfully demonstrating viral antigen in association with characteristic lesions and thereby confirming the etiological role of the detected ranavirus.

The application of in situ hybridization (ISH) has further refined the histopathological diagnosis of ranavirus infections. Sriwanayos and colleagues [25] developed a Frog virus 3-specific ISH probe for use in experimental challenge studies with East Asian bullfrog tadpoles (Hoplobatrachus rugulosus) exposed to tiger frog virus. The ISH assay enabled the precise localization of viral nucleic acid within tissue sections, confirming that the microscopic lesions observed, including necrosis of the liver, kidney, and hematopoietic tissue, were directly attributable to ranavirus infection [25]. This technique offers several advantages over conventional histopathology alone: it provides definitive evidence of viral presence within lesioned tissue, it can detect infection even in the absence of characteristic inclusion bodies, and it enables the semi-quantitative assessment of viral distribution across different tissue compartments. The integration of ISH with routine histopathology and qPCR represents the most rigorous approach to confirming ranavirus-associated disease, particularly in cases where virus isolation is unsuccessful or where sample quality is compromised.

Virus Isolation and Electron Microscopy: The Gold Standard for Definitive Identification

Virus isolation in cell culture has historically been considered the gold standard for ranavirus detection, providing definitive evidence of active, replicating virus and yielding isolates suitable for downstream characterization. The cytopathic effects (CPE) induced by ranaviruses in susceptible cell lines are characteristic: infected cells typically exhibit rounding, detachment, and the formation of coalescing plaques that progress to complete monolayer destruction [2, 20]. Sriwanayos and colleagues [2] documented that ranaviruses isolated from cultured fish and amphibians in Thailand induced identical CPE in epithelioma papulosum cyprini (EPC) cell cultures, with progression from initial focal rounding to the development of confluent plaques. Multiple cell lines are susceptible to ranavirus infection, including EPC cells, fathead minnow (FHM) cells, and various amphibian-derived cell lines, providing flexibility in diagnostic protocols. The medaka spermatogonial stem cell line (SG3) and the Opsariichthys bidens spermatogonial stem cell line (ObSSC) have both been demonstrated to support robust ranavirus replication, making them potentially valuable tools for virus isolation from field samples [37, 38].

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) provides ultrastructural confirmation of ranavirus infection through the visualization of viral particles directly within infected cells. Ranavirus particles are icosahedral, typically measuring 150-200 nm in diameter, with a characteristic double-layered capsid and an electron-dense core [20, 50]. Sriwanayos and colleagues [2] employed TEM to examine EPC cells infected with Thai ranavirus isolates, demonstrating cytoplasmic viral particles with the ultrastructural features typical of the genus. Tamukai and colleagues [50] similarly used TEM to confirm ranavirus infection in captive turtles, identifying cytoplasmic ranavirus-like particles within necrotic spleen cells when histopathology had failed to reveal inclusion bodies. While TEM is not practical for routine diagnostic screening due to its expense, technical demands, and limited throughput, it remains the definitive method for morphological confirmation and is particularly valuable in investigations of novel or unusual disease presentations.

Molecular Epidemiology and Phylogenomic Characterization

The application of whole-genome sequencing and phylogenomic analysis has revolutionized our understanding of ranavirus diversity, evolution, and transmission dynamics. The availability of complete genome sequences enables the discrimination of closely related viral strains, the detection of recombination events, and the inference of viral movement across geographic regions and host species. Kim and colleagues [1] employed whole-genome sequencing to characterize two Frog virus 3-like ranaviruses isolated from wild Korean clawed salamanders (Onychodactylus koreanus), revealing that these viruses shared 91.5% and 92.2% nucleotide identity with Rana grylio virus (RGV) and Rana nigromaculata ranavirus (RNRV), respectively, but only 84.2% identity with soft-shelled turtle iridovirus (STIV). Phylogenomic analysis placed the Korean isolates within a monophyletic clade of Asian FV3-like ranaviruses that formed a sister group to the New World FV3-like clade, providing important insights into the biogeographic history of these pathogens and suggesting that RGV and RNRV may represent endemic Chinese strains rather than recent introductions [1].

The detection of recombination among ranavirus lineages has emerged as a critical theme in recent genomic studies, with implications for both diagnostics and disease emergence. Vilaça and colleagues [35] sequenced complete genomes of 18 FV3 isolates from Canadian amphibians and documented widespread recombination between FV3 and common midwife toad virus (CMTV). The recombinant viruses harbored mosaic genomes with breakpoints located primarily within open reading frames, generating novel chimeric proteins that may possess altered functional properties [35]. Importantly, CMTV-derived genes associated with virulence were identified in wild FV3 strains, raising the possibility that recombination may enhance pathogenicity. These findings underscore the importance of genomic surveillance for detecting emerging recombinant strains that may escape detection by single-gene diagnostic assays. The development of PCR-based methods capable of discriminating among the different genomic arrangement variants of ranaviruses, as described by Stöhr and colleagues [19], represents an important step toward incorporating genomic diversity information into routine diagnostic workflows.

Sample Selection, Storage, and Diagnostic Considerations

The selection of appropriate sample types and the implementation of proper storage protocols are critical determinants of diagnostic success. For molecular detection, liver and kidney tissues have consistently shown the highest diagnostic sensitivity, reflecting the tropism of ranaviruses for hematopoietic and reticuloendothelial tissues [20, 32]. Box and colleagues [4] successfully detected ranavirus DNA in liver tissue samples from African amphibians, while Burgos and colleagues [21] developed a multiplex qPCR assay validated on skin, liver, kidney, spleen, and lung samples from six amphibian species, demonstrating the broad tissue distribution of viral nucleic acid. For non-lethal sampling, cloacal swabs have been employed in several studies, though with variable success. Carstairs [54] tested cloacal swabs, lesion swabs, and tail clips from live turtles showing clinical signs of disease, while Maclaine and colleagues [44] utilized oral-cloacal swabs to detect ranavirus DNA in Australian lizards, achieving detection rates of 36.1% in captive and 78.6% in wild individuals. However, the sensitivity of swab-based sampling relative to tissue collection remains poorly characterized, and negative swab results should be interpreted with caution.

The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling has emerged as a promising approach for non-invasive surveillance of ranavirus in aquatic habitats. Hossack and colleagues [10, 29] employed eDNA methods to estimate ranavirus occurrence across 233 sites in the southwestern USA and Mexico, detecting the pathogen in 33% of bullfrog-only sites and 10% of sites where bullfrogs co-occurred with native amphibians. The eDNA approach offers several advantages for population-level surveillance: it eliminates the need for animal capture and handling, it can integrate viral shedding from multiple host species simultaneously, and it enables sampling across large spatial scales. However, the limitations of eDNA must be carefully considered. The detection of viral DNA in water samples does not distinguish between active infection and environmental contamination from feces, urine, or decomposing carcasses. Furthermore, the relationship between eDNA detection and infection prevalence in the resident host population is complex and context-dependent. The observation by Marcer and colleagues [53] that trace amounts of ranavirus DNA detected on turtle skin likely reflected environmental contamination rather than true infection serves as a cautionary reminder of the interpretive challenges inherent in eDNA-based diagnostics.

Diagnostic

Phylogenetic Diversity and Evolutionary Origins of FV3-like Ranaviruses

The genus Ranavirus (family Iridoviridae, subfamily Alphairidovirinae) encompasses a diverse assemblage of large, double-stranded DNA viruses that infect poikilothermic vertebrates across six continents [11, 12, 32]. Within this genus, the Frog virus 3 (FV3)-like ranaviruses represent a particularly significant and evolutionarily dynamic clade, serving as the type species for the genus and comprising a multitude of strains associated with epizootics in amphibians, reptiles, and fish globally [1, 5, 7, 12, 37, 52]. Understanding the phylogenetic architecture and evolutionary origins of these viruses is not merely an academic exercise; it is foundational to predicting future emergence patterns, assessing cross-species transmission risks, and informing biosecurity policies at national and international levels, as mandated by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), which classifies ranavirus infections as notifiable in amphibians [8, 11, 24, 55].

The Core Phylogenetic Framework of FV3-like Ranaviruses

FV3-like ranaviruses constitute a monophyletic group that is distinct from other major ranavirus lineages, namely the Ambystoma tigrinum virus (ATV)-like, the epizootic haematopoietic necrosis virus (EHNV)-like, and the common midwife toad virus (CMTV)-like clades [12, 22, 27]. The most comprehensive phylogenomic analyses, based on whole-genome sequencing and concatenated alignments of core genes (including the major capsid protein [MCP], DNA polymerase [DNApol], and ribonucleotide reductase subunits [RNR-α, RNR-β]), consistently recover a well-supported sister relationship between the FV3-like clade and the CMTV-like clade, with which they share a most recent common ancestor that likely infected ancestral amphibian hosts [12, 19]. This relationship is particularly consequential because recombination between FV3-like and CMTV-like viruses has been documented repeatedly, generating novel chimeric genomes with potentially heightened virulence [35].

Within the FV3-like clade itself, a robust biogeographic structure has emerged from comparative genomic analyses. The canonical FV3 strain, first isolated from the leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) in North America, serves as the reference point. However, genomic surveys have revealed that FV3-like viruses can be broadly partitioned into at least two well-supported subclades: a New World (primarily North American) clade and an Asian clade [1, 4, 17]. The isolation and whole-genome characterization of Onychodactylus koreanus ranavirus 1 and 2 (OKRV1, OKRV2) from wild Korean clawed salamanders in the Republic of Korea provided critical resolution of this structure. Phylogenomic analysis demonstrated that OKRV1 and OKRV2 form a monophyletic group with other previously characterized Asian FV3-like viruses, notably Rana grylio virus (RGV) and Rana nigromaculata ranavirus (RNRV), and that this entire Asian lineage constitutes a well-supported sister group to the New World FV3-like clade [1]. Open reading frame (ORF) comparisons revealed that OKRV1 and OKRV2 share 91.5% identity with RGV and 92.2% with RNRV, but only 84.2% with soft-shelled turtle iridovirus (STIV), a more distantly related FV3-like virus from chelonians [1]. This degree of divergence underscores that the Asian FV3-like lineage is not a recent introduction but rather represents endemic, potentially ancient strains circulating in East Asian herpetofauna.

Deep Evolutionary Origins and Biogeographic Dispersal

The evolutionary origins of FV3-like ranaviruses are intertwined with the deep history of their amphibian hosts. A seminal phylogenomic study employing whole-genome methylation profiling and phylogenetic reconstructions has posited the existence of four distinct evolutionary lineages within the genus Ranavirus: (1) SGIV (Singapore grouper iridovirus), (2) SCRaV/MRV/LMBV (Siniperca chuatsi ranavirus/mandarin fish ranavirus/largemouth bass virus), (3) EHNV/ENARV/ATV, and (4) CMTV/FV3 [27]. This framework, supported by genomic collinearity and host habitat correlations, suggests that the FV3/CMTV lineage represents the most recently diverged and most rapidly radiating group, consistent with its broad host range and documented capacity for host switching [27, 28]. The observation that FV3-like viruses infect not only amphibians but also reptiles and fish [1, 15, 17, 37, 38, 50] indicates a relatively recent expansion of host breadth, possibly facilitated by anthropogenic transport.

The global dissemination of FV3-like ranaviruses has been profoundly shaped by human activities, particularly the international trade in live amphibians. The introduction of the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), a known reservoir for FV3-like viruses, to multiple continents has been implicated in the translocation of these pathogens to previously naïve regions [10, 24, 30]. In Chile, detection of FV3 in invasive Xenopus laevis populations, coinciding with the absence of the virus in native species, strongly suggests that FV3 entered the country through infected African clawed frogs imported for the pet trade [30]. Similarly, the detection of FV3-like viruses in amphibian shipments transiting Hong Kong International Airport, with 56.8% of animals testing positive by quantitative PCR, highlights the airport as a potential epicenter for global viral dissemination [33]. These trade-mediated movements have apparently resulted in relatively recent introductions, as molecular clock analyses of FV3 genomes from Canada indicate that the presence of the FV3 lineage in that country is less than 100 years old, coinciding with the onset of large-scale international amphibian commerce [35].

Recombination, Mosaicism, and Genomic Plasticity

A defining feature of FV3-like ranavirus evolution is the extraordinary degree of genomic plasticity driven by homologous recombination. Whole-genome sequencing of 18 FV3 isolates from Canada revealed widespread recombination with CMTV-like viruses, generating a complex mosaic of introgressed genomic regions [35]. In several isolates, recombination breakpoints were located within open reading frames (ORFs), resulting in novel chimeric proteins that combine domains from both parental lineages. Critically, the CMTV-derived genes that have been acquired by FV3-like viruses in North America are associated with increased pathogenicity, suggesting that recombination may be a key driver of virulence evolution [35]. This finding is corroborated by comparative genomics of an FV3-like virus isolated from a snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Canada, which exhibited 99.71% nucleotide identity to wild-type FV3 from leopard frogs but contained 9 unique gene truncations, 3 of which involved core iridovirid ORFs, and showed signatures of four putative recombination events consistent with an amphibian origin [17].

The extent of recombination extends beyond the FV3-CMTV interface. Comparative genomic analyses across amphibian-like ranaviruses (ALRVs) have identified 29 genes that exhibit presence/absence variation across different clades, and 21 genes that show clear evidence of recombination [22]. Notably, a virus isolated from a captive reptile was identified as a clear mosaic of two divergent parental genomes [22]. Even within the more constrained FV3-like clade itself, the genomes of mandarin fish ranavirus (SCRaV) and largemouth bass ranavirus (MSRaV) display distinct genomic arrangements, classified as a separate collinear block group (Group V) among ranaviruses, indicating that genome rearrangements, in addition to recombination, contribute to lineage diversification [28].

Interspecific Evolutionary Relationships and the Role of Host Adaptation

While the FV3-like clade is often characterized as containing "amphibian specialists," emerging evidence suggests a more nuanced picture of host adaptation and ecological specialization. The detection of FV3-like viruses in reptiles, including multiple turtle species [17, 48-50, 53], lizards [19, 44], and snakes [19], demonstrates that these viruses are not strictly confined to amphibians. Phylogenetic analyses of reptilian and amphibian ranaviruses from Europe have revealed that reptilian isolates are often more closely related to amphibian ranaviruses from the same geographic region than they are to other reptilian isolates from different continents, implying that host switching occurs frequently but is constrained by geographic proximity and sympatry [19]. This pattern suggests that FV3-like viruses undergo repeated cross-species transmission within local ecological communities, with turtles and fish potentially serving as subclinical reservoir hosts that maintain the virus in aquatic environments during periods of amphibian absence [34].

Experimental transmission studies have confirmed the capacity of FV3-like ranaviruses to cross class boundaries. Infected gray treefrog larvae (Hyla chrysoscelis) transmitted virus to naïve conspecifics and to red-eared slider turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans), while infected turtles and fish (mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis) transmitted virus back to naïve treefrog larvae [34]. Notably, infected turtles and fish did not die, confirming their role as asymptomatic carriers. This reservoir competence is particularly alarming given the broad geographic distribution of invasive bullfrogs, which have been shown to increase the likelihood of ranavirus occurrence at landscape scales. In the southwestern USA and Mexico, ranaviruses were estimated to occur at 33% of sites occupied exclusively by bullfrogs, compared to only 3% of sites with only native amphibians [10]. Furthermore, eradication of invasive bullfrogs from a wildlife refuge led to the coextirpation of ranaviruses, providing strong experimental evidence that bullfrogs are essential for maintaining FV3-like virus transmission in some ecosystems [29].

The African Paradox and the Unresolved Root

Despite the broad global distribution of FV3-like ranaviruses, significant geographic lacunae remain. Until recently, Africa represented a profound knowledge gap, with only a single incidental finding of ranavirus in Xenopus longipes from Cameroon lacking molecular confirmation [4]. The molecular confirmation of ranavirus infection in 16% of sampled frogs and one turtle from Chad, Africa, has begun to fill this void. Phylogenetic analysis of partial MCP, DNApol, RNR-α, and RNR-β sequences indicated that the Chad frog virus (CFV) is most similar to tiger frog virus (TFV), an Asian FV3-like virus [4]. Full genome sequencing placed CFV as a well-supported sister group to the previously characterized TFVs from Asia, suggesting an Asian origin for the African strain. This finding raises the possibility that FV3-like ranaviruses were introduced to Africa through historical trade in amphibians, perhaps via the same routes that introduced the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis [4]. Alternatively, CFV may represent a deep, endemic African lineage that has simply not been sampled previously. The presence of ranavirus in both anurans and a turtle in Chad underscores the need for expanded surveillance across the African continent.

The unresolved root of the ranavirus phylogeny remains a significant challenge. Inclusion of an outgroup genome (e.g., from other iridovirid genera) has proven inconclusive, and different analytical approaches yield conflicting topologies [22]. However, the identification of core genes, a set of 26 core iridovirid ORFs plus 11 FV3-specific ORFs, has provided a stable scaffold for phylogenetic reconstruction [17]. Some analyses suggest that the fish-infecting EHNV/ENARV lineage may represent the basal branch, while others support a deep split between the SGIV-like viruses and all other ranaviruses [27]. This ambiguity is compounded by the demonstration that ranavirus genomes are heavily methylated (e.g., 16.04% methylation in mandarin fish ranavirus), and that methylation levels vary between lineages in a pattern that correlates with phylogenetic relationships, potentially offering a novel source of phylogenetic signal [27]. Ultimately, resolving the evolutionary origins of FV3-like viruses will require additional genome sequencing from underrepresented geographic regions and host taxa, coupled with sophisticated phylogenomic methods that can account for recombination, incomplete lineage sorting, and variable evolutionary rates across the genome.

References

[1] Kim J, Sung H, Jung TS, Park J, Park D. First Report of Endemic Frog Virus 3 (FV3)-like Ranaviruses in the Korean Clawed Salamander (Onychodactylus koreanus) in Asia. Viruses. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v16050675

[2] Sriwanayos P, Subramaniam K, Stilwell NK, Imnoi K, Popov V, Kanchanakhan S, et al.. Phylogenomic characterization of ranaviruses isolated from cultured fish and amphibians in Thailand. Facets. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0043

[3] Bartlett PP, Ward T, Brue D, Carey A, Duffus A. Ranaviruses in North America: A Brief Review in Wild Herpetofauna. Journal of North American Herpetology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17161/jnah.v2021i2.15747

[4] Box EK, Cleveland CA, Subramaniam K, Waltzek T, Yabsley M. Molecular Confirmation of Ranavirus Infection in Amphibians From Chad, Africa. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.733939

[5] Gui S, Wu J, Liao L, Zheng X, Zhu P, Zhang L, et al.. Development of two recombinase-aided amplification assays combined with lateral flow dipstick (RAA-LFD) and real-time fluorescence (RF-RAA) for the detection of Frog virus 3-like ranaviruses.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2025.110154

[6] Warne RW, LaBumbard B, LaGrange S, Vredenburg V, Catenazzi A. Co-Infection by Chytrid Fungus and Ranaviruses in Wild and Harvested Frogs in the Tropical Andes. PLoS ONE. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145864

[7] Duffus A, Forzán M. Amphibian Ranaviruses: A Brief Overview. Journal of Herpetological Medicine and Surgery. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5818/jhms-d-25-00010

[8] Black Y, Meredith A, Price SJ. DETECTION AND REPORTING OF RANAVIRUS IN AMPHIBIANS: EVALUATION OF THE ROLES OF THE WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH AND THE PUBLISHED LITERATURE. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7589/2016-08-176

[9] Flechas SV, Urbina J, Crawford A, Gutiérrez K, Corrales K, Castellanos LA, et al.. First evidence of ranavirus in native and invasive amphibians in Colombia.. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03717

[10] Hossack B, Oja EB, Owens AK, Hall D, Cobos C, Crawford CL, et al.. Empirical evidence for effects of invasive American Bullfrogs on occurrence of native amphibians and emerging pathogens.. Ecological Applications. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2785

[11] Miller DL, Gray M, Storfer A. Ecopathology of Ranaviruses Infecting Amphibians. Viruses. 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v3112351

[12] Price SJ, Ariel E, Maclaine A, Rosa G, Gray M, Brunner J, et al.. From fish to frogs and beyond: Impact and host range of emergent ranaviruses.. Virology. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2017.08.001

[13] Blaustein A, Urbina J, Snyder P, Reynolds E, Dang T, Hoverman J, et al.. Effects of Emerging Infectious Diseases on Amphibians: A Review of Experimental Studies. Diversity. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/D10030081

[14] Chen G, Robert J. Antiviral Immunity in Amphibians. Viruses. 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v3112065

[15] Wirth W, Schwarzkopf L, Skerratt L, Ariel E. Ranaviruses and reptiles. PeerJ. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6083

[16] Whitfield S, Alvarado-Barboza G, Abarca JG, Zumbado‐Ulate H, Jiménez RR, Kerby J. Ranavirus is widespread in Costa Rica and co-occurs with threatened amphibians.. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03576

[17] Lung O, Bolaji AJ, Nebroski M, Fisher M, Buchanan C, Kruczkiewicz P, et al.. Comparative Genomics Analysis between frog Virus 3-like Ranavirus from the First Canadian Reptile Mortality Event and Similar Viruses from Amphibians. . 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-943897/v1

[18] Youker-Smith TE, Boersch-Supan PH, Whipps C, Ryan S. Environmental Drivers of Ranavirus in Free-Living Amphibians in Constructed Ponds. bioRxiv. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-018-1350-5

[19] Stöhr A, López-Bueno A, Blahak S, Caeiro M, Rosa G, Matos APAd, et al.. Phylogeny and Differentiation of Reptilian and Amphibian Ranaviruses Detected in Europe. PLoS ONE. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118633

[20] Miller DL, Pessier A, Hick P, Whittington R. Comparative Pathology of Ranaviruses and Diagnostic Techniques. . 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13755-1_7

[21] Burgos G, Narváez-Narváez DA, Freire-Paspuel B, Merino‐Viteri A, Muslin C, Genoy-Puerto A. Development of a multiplex real-time PCR surveillance assay for monitoring the health status of Ecuadorian amphibians at risk of extinction. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.134

[22] Price SJ. Comparative Genomics of Amphibian-like Ranaviruses, Nucleocytoplasmic Large DNA Viruses of Poikilotherms. Evolutionary bioinformatics online. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S33490

[23] Grayfer L, Andino F, Chen G, Chinchar GV, Robert J. Immune Evasion Strategies of Ranaviruses and Innate Immune Responses to These Emerging Pathogens. Viruses. 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v4071075

[24] Ribeiro LP, Toledo LF. Enhancing public policies for Brazilian bullfrog farming. Biota Neotropica. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-bn-2024-1687

[25] Sriwanayos P, Ossiboff R, Kanchanakhan S, Polchana J, Imnoi K, Viadanna P, et al.. Experimental challenge of East Asian bullfrog Hoplobatrachus rugulosus tadpoles with tiger frog virus: dosage impact on disease severity.. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03896

[26] Kn F, Ec H, An H, Tq I, Nc M, La R, et al.. Looking for Local Adaptations in a Ranavirus: A Screen of All 95 Open Reading Frames of Ambystoma tigrinum virus (Ranavirus ambystoma1) from Western North America. Journal of Emerging Diseases and Virology. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16966/2473-1846.170

[27] Pan W, Liang M, You Y, Li Z, Weng S, He J, et al.. Viral genomic methylation and the interspecies evolutionary relationships of ranavirus. PLoS Pathogens. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1012736

[28] Yu X, Ke F, Zhang Q, Gui J. Genome Characteristics of Two Ranavirus Isolates from Mandarin Fish and Largemouth Bass. Pathogens. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12050730

[29] Hossack B, Hall D, Crawford CL, Goldberg C, Muths E, Sigafus BH, et al.. Successful eradication of invasive American bullfrogs leads to coextirpation of emerging pathogens. Conservation Letters. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12970

[30] Peñafiel-Ricaurte A, Price SJ, Leung WTM, Alvarado-Rybak M, Espinoza-Zambrano A, Valdivia C, et al.. Is Xenopus laevis introduction linked with Ranavirus incursion, persistence and spread in Chile?. PeerJ. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14497

[31] Leung WTM, Thomas-Walters L, Garner T, Balloux F, Durrant C, Price SJ. A quantitative-PCR based method to estimate ranavirus viral load following normalisation by reference to an ultraconserved vertebrate target.. Journal of Virological Methods. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.08.016

[32] Brunner J, Storfer A, Gray M, Hoverman J. Ranavirus Ecology and Evolution: From Epidemiology to Extinction. . 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13755-1_4

[33] Kolby J, Smith KM, Berger L, Karesh W, Preston A, Pessier A, et al.. First Evidence of Amphibian Chytrid Fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) and Ranavirus in Hong Kong Amphibian Trade. PLoS ONE. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090750

[34] Brenes R, Gray M, Waltzek T, Wilkes R, Miller DL. Transmission of Ranavirus between Ectothermic Vertebrate Hosts. PLoS ONE. 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092476

[35] Vilaça S, Bienentreu J, Brunetti C, Lesbarrères D, Murray D, Kyle C. Frog Virus 3 Genomes Reveal Prevalent Recombination between Ranavirus Lineages and Their Origins in Canada. Journal of Virology. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00765-19

[36] Rijks J, Saucedo B, Sluijs ASd, Wilkie G, Asten AVv, Broek Jvd, et al.. Investigation of Amphibian Mortality Events in Wildlife Reveals an On-Going Ranavirus Epidemic in the North of the Netherlands. PLoS ONE. 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157473

[37] Cheng L, Zhang S, Liu Z, Jiang Q, Li M, Ke F, et al.. Transcriptome analysis of medaka spermatogonial stem cell line (SG3) infected with ranaviruses in vitro.. Fish and Shellfish Immunology. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2025.110453

[38] Gui L, Zhang S, Liu Z, Cheng L, Jiang Q, Li M, et al.. Transcriptome analysis of the spermatogonial stem cell line of Opsariichthys bidens after infection with three strains of ranaviruses.. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - Part D:Genomics and Proteomics. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbd.2025.101438

[39] Bosch J, Monsalve-Carcaño C, Price SJ, Bielby J. Single infection with Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis or Ranavirus does not increase probability of co-infection in a montane community of amphibians. Scientific Reports. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78196-3

[40] Stutz WE, Blaustein A, Briggs C, Hoverman J, Rohr J, Johnson PTJ. Using multi-response models to investigate pathogen coinfections across scales: insights from emerging diseases of amphibians. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12938

[41] Herczeg D, Holly D, Kásler A, Bókony V, Papp T, Takács-Vágó H, et al.. Amphibian larvae benefit from a warm environment under simultaneous threat from chytridiomycosis and ranavirosis. bioRxiv. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.20.508725

[42] Campbell LJ, Hammond SA, Price SJ, Sharma MD, Garner T, Birol I, et al.. A novel approach to wildlife transcriptomics provides evidence of disease‐mediated differential expression and changes to the microbiome of amphibian populations. Molecular Ecology. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14528

[43] Samanta M, Yim J, Andino F, Paiola M, Robert J. TLR5-Mediated Reactivation of Quiescent Ranavirus FV3 in Xenopus Peritoneal Macrophages. Journal of Virology. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00215-21

[44] Maclaine A, Wirth W, McKnight DT, Burgess G, Ariel E. Ranaviruses in captive and wild Australian lizards. . 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/FACETS-2020-0011

[45] Steiner N, Striewe LC, Leineweber C, Camps SG, Wohlsein P, Elze F, et al.. Carcass-Based Surveillance of Amphibian Herpesviruses, Ranaviruses and Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Schleswig-Holstein, Northern Germany. Pathogens. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15030286

[46] Strachinis I, Marschang R, Lymberakis P, Karagianni K, Azmanis P. Infectious disease threats to amphibians in Greece: new localities positive for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis.. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03712

[47] Casais R, Larrinaga A, Dalton K, Lapido PD, Márquez I, Bécares E, et al.. Water sports could contribute to the translocation of ranaviruses. Scientific Reports. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39674-5

[48] Rimple RJ, Lance S, Buhlmann K, Kohl MT, Tuberville TD. Ranavirus-Positive Hatchling Eastern Box Turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) Suggest Vertical Transmission without Observed Disease.. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-24-00220

[49] Rico JAdL, Fonseca AA, Viadanna P, Brunner JL, Campião KM. Ranavirus infection in anuran species in Atlantic Forest fragments in Brazil.. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03892

[50] Tamukai K, Shimoda H, Kadekaru S, Une Y. Case report: ranavirus infections in captive eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) in Japan. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1627913

[51] Wirth W, Schwarzkopf L, Schaffer J, Ariel E. NO RANAVIRAL DNA FOUND IN AUSTRALIAN FRESHWATER TURTLES, 2014–19, DESPITE PREVIOUS SEROLOGIC EVIDENCE. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-23-00051

[52] Garcês A, Pires I. Ranavirus and Its Impact on the Amphibian Population. Middle East Research Journal of Biological Sciences. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36348/merjbs.2024.v04i04.005

[53] Marcer F, Marchiori E, Goodman R, Carman HR, Mahaffy R, Cabrera NS. Trace Amounts of Ranavirus Detected in Common Musk Turtles (Sternotherus odoratus) at a Site Where the Pathogen Was Previously Common. Animals. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13182951

[54] Carstairs SJ. Evidence for low prevalence of ranaviruses in Ontario, Canada’s freshwater turtle population. PeerJ. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6987

[55] Duffus A, Gray M, Miller DL, Brunner J. SECOND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON RANAVIRUSES:: A NORTH AMERICAN HERPETOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. . 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17161/jnah.vi1.11910