# Check tads for ranavirus/chytrid?



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

I'd like to know if its a viable option for testing tads for ranavirus or chytrid. I recieved tads in the last month from 3 different sources, and I'm thinking it'd be a good idea. Or do I have to wait till they morph out?


----------



## Judy S (Aug 29, 2010)

probably for the ranavirus...because you can probably do something about it...but the treatment for chytrid would be for the froglets...bone up on Amphibian Ringers...


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

Isnt Amphibian Ringers just for rehydration and electrolytes????? I'd just like to know who HAS tested for rana and chytrid. Is it just a swab test and mail it off? I'm not concerned about treatment as I have no reason to suspect any infection at this point. This is just precautionary on new stuff coming in to me.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Amphibian Ringer's solution is used as supportive therapy on sick animals. In and of itself, Ringer's does not cure disease. It is used as an adjunct to keep an animal hydrated, allowing the treatment for (insert disease name here) to be dispersed throughout the body. As suspected by pdfcrazy, it is full of electrolytes, which are needed for proper respiration in cell membranes, among other things.

Chytridomycosis is a keratinophilic (likes keratin) disease, attacking keratin in morphed frogs. The larval stage (tadpoles) of frogs have little to no keratin, as it is limited to the mouth parts found later in development. As such, it does not cause disease in frog larvae. You can, however, test for Cytrid presence.

Ranavirus is an inclusion body virus, as is Human A.I.D.S, reptile IBD, and many others. The test for it is a Polymerase Chain reaction, or PCR. It can be done on any cells containing DNA, hence the "swab test". More accurate would be a histology during necropsy. A negative PCR does not rule out Ranavirus. In addition, a positive PCR does not indicate disease, merely the presence of the inclusion body responsible for disease. An animal can be a carrier of Ranavirus and still be asymptomatic. 




Judy S said:


> probably for the ranavirus...because you can probably do something about it...but the treatment for chytrid would be for the froglets...bone up on Amphibian Ringers...


________________
In today's digital age, ignorance is optional.


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

OK, so......testing for Ranavirus in tads is possible. Chytrid might be very difficult I take it. Best to wait until they are froglets, and just keep them isolated right now then?


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

To the best of my knowledge, Chytrid is not pathogenic in tadpoles, as it attacks keratin. Keratin is absent in all but the later stages of larval frog development. I do suspect they could be carriers. Ranavirus testing is inconclusive for negative results. Inclusion bodies (ranavirus) are typically discovered post mortem. Do you suspect something, or are you just wanting to test as a prophylactic measure? If you are wanting to test simply for the sake of results, and have no real suspicion of infection, I am afraid you may be wasting your money. If you have a sick, dying, or dead animal, without a reasonable cause of illness/death, by all means quarantine and test. Better yet, consult an experienced vet and get real medical advice. If you are simply curious, I salute your desire for knowledge, and hope I helped some.



pdfCrazy said:


> OK, so......testing for Ranavirus in tads is possible. Chytrid might be very difficult I take it. Best to wait until they are froglets, and just keep them isolated right now then?


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

No, I suspect no infection, and have had no illness or death. Everything under my care is healthy to the best of my knowledge. However, when recieving frogs frogs and tadpoles from alll over the country, soem people I know well, others not...it seemed good to be precautionary. I dont understand what good a PCR test would be if you can get a negative when it is in fact present, and a positive when it actually is absent. That would essentially make this test worthless, right?


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

A PCR test is highly accurate for positive results. A positive result equals infection. The problem is with false negatives. Just like HIV in humans, you can test negative and still have HIV. It is only after a series of negative tests that you become sure. Once you have a positive test, you will forever carry the virus (ranavirus or HIV for that matter), until the time comes that there is a cure.

I agree about the unknowns of dealing with strangers. During the 80's and 90's I had, arguably, one of the larger collections of Boas and Pythons in the USA. I was scared to death of reptile IBD (inclusion body disease) which is just like ranavirus and human HIV. IBD wiped out entire collections, and once someone knew they had it, the more dishonest ones would sell off their still well looking animals to unsuspecting buyers, and the cycle continued. After much research and listening to peers, I decided the only way to be safe was with excellent husbandry and strict quarantine practice (PREVENTION). I would always care for my new animals AFTER I was finished working in my permanent collection for the day. No animal would leave quarantine for a minimum of 90 days and 3 consecutive clean fecals. Only after that, would I consider allowing a new animal come in contact with my established population. Even then, I sterilized equipment before using it on another animal, and washed my hands as well. With the only exception being animals that were paired for breeding, no two animals ever came in contact. I was anal about any vectors of disease. Mites, ticks, even mosquitoes spread disease. They had no place in my collection. 

I do similar with frogs, now that I have a nice collection going. ANY new animals (I don't care if I bought it from my mother) go in a separate room for a quarantine. Only after 2-3 months of zero problems, will they come into my main frog room. I am a firm believer that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Your concern speaks volumes about your care for the animals you own. I respect that very much! Just remember prevention, prevention, prevention! It is a lot easier, and less expensive than prophylactic testing. 



pdfCrazy said:


> No, I suspect no infection, and have had no illness or death. Everything under my care is healthy to the best of my knowledge. However, when recieving frogs frogs and tadpoles from alll over the country, soem people I know well, others not...it seemed good to be precautionary. I dont understand what good a PCR test would be if you can get a negative when it is in fact present, and a positive when it actually is absent. That would essentially make this test worthless, right?


----------

