Coronavirus Antibodies in Bat Biologists

To the Editor: Severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coro-navirus (SARS-CoV) is a new coro-navirus that caused an epidemic of 8,096 cases of SARS and 774 deaths during 2002–2003 (1). Attempts are ongoing to identify the natural reservoir of SARS-CoV. Several horseshoe bat species (Rhinolopus spp.) from Asia (2,3) and a sample of bats from Africa (4) have been found to be infected by and potential reservoirs for various SARS-like CoVs and various CoVs that are not SARS-like (2–4). However, transmission of bat SARS-CoV from bats to humans has not been reported. During October 2005, we looked for serologic evidence of infection among bat biologists attending an international meeting in the United States. After giving informed consent , volunteer biologists completed an anonymous survey and provided 10 mL of blood. Serum samples were tested at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for an-tibodies against inactivated human SARS-CoV and against recombinant, expressed SARS-CoV nucleocapsid protein (SARS-CoV N) by enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) as described (5,6). The primary genera studied by participants were Myotis (24%), Tadarida (13%), and Eptesicus (10%). A total of 20 (23%) participants had worked with or had contact with horseshoe bat species (Rhinolopus spp.). Because this genus has 69 species, distributed from Australia to Europe, some participants who indicated that they worked with the Rhinolopus spp. may likely have worked with species found outside of Asia. Involvement with bats most often consisted of capturing or handling them in the fi eld (90%), followed by capturing or handling them in the laboratory (36%). Urine and fe-ces were encountered most frequently (" always " or " most of the time " by 66%–68% of participants); contact with blood, saliva, or tissues and bites or scratches reportedly occurred less often (" always " or " most of the time " by 4%–28% of participants). The serum samples from all 90 participants were negative for an-tibodies against inactivated SARS-CoV, and samples from all but 1 were negative for SARS-CoV N protein. The 1 positive sample gave a strong signal (optical density 1.08 at 405 nm at a 1:400 dilution) by SARS-CoV N protein EIA and against SARS-CoV N by Western blot but gave no reactivity against recombinant SARS-CoV spike protein or inactivated SARS-CoV by either EIA or Western blot. Because the N protein has a region that is relatively conserved among all known coronaviruses (7), the antibodies against SARS-CoV N protein could have …