BRUCELLA PINNIPEDIALIS INFECTIONS IN PACIFIC HARBOR SEALS (PHOCA VITULINA RICHARDSI) FROM WASHINGTON STATE, USA

In 1994 a novel Brucella was reported in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and a common dolphin (Delphinus delphis); (Ross et al., 1994) and from an aborted bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) fetus (Ewalt et al., 1994). Subsequently antibodies to and isolates of this marine Brucella were detected in multiple marine mammal species (Foster et al., 1996; Nielson et al., 2001). Marine Brucella spp. have been classified as two species, Brucella ceti and Brucella pinnipedialis, for isolates from cetaceans and seals, respectively (Cloeckaert et al., 2001; Foster et al., 2007; Banai and Corbel, 2010) with subgroups identified within each (Maquart et al., 2009).

Like terrestrial isolates, B. ceti and potentially B. pinnipedialis, are zoonotic (Cloeckaert et al., 2011). In 1999 a case of laboratory-acquired brucellosis of marine origin occurred (Brew et al., 1999). Subsequently, three cases of naturally acquired brucellosis of marine origin were reported from people having no known history of exposure to marine mammals (Sohn et al., 2003; McDonald et al., 2006). Consumption of raw seafood is a potential route of human exposure (Whatmore et al., 2008); however, the lack of understanding of the epizootiology of marine Brucella infection makes it difficult to assess how people were exposed in the cases of naturally acquired infections.

Marine Brucella spp. also can cause disease in domestic animals. Experiments using marine Brucella of different origins and different inoculation routes caused abortion and seroconversion in cattle (Rhyan et al., 2001), infection and seroconversion without abortion in sheep, and fulminant infection in guinea pigs (Perrett et al., 2003). Detailed information on how marine Brucella is transmitted is needed to assess the risk that it presents to domestic animals.

We used serologic, microbiologic, and pathologic data collected from live-captured, stranded, and rehabilitated animals to elucidate the epizootiology of B. pinnipedialis in harbor seals and hypothesized potential routes of infection for humans, domestic animals, and sympatric endangered species.

Harbor seals were captured at 24 sites in Washington State, USA (Fig. 1), using a beach seine (Jeffries et al., 1993) or beach rush. Blood was drawn from the extradural intravertebral vein using 18 gauge 3.81–8.89 cm needles (Bossart et al., 2001). Whole blood was stored chilled; serum was separated as soon as possible and frozen (−20 C). Blood collected in heparinized containers was frozen for culture.

Using known pupping dates from a well-studied harbor seal haul-out site (Gertrude Island, Washington) and weight/age correlations for harbor seals from British Columbia (Bigg, 1969, Cottrell et al., 2002), harbor seals were classified as pups (<2 mo), weaned pups (2–12 mo), yearlings (12–24 mo), subadults (24–48 mo), or adults (>48 mo).

Stranded harbor seal carcasses in good postmortem condition (carcass code 2 or 3; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005) were necropsied, as were seals that died or were euthanized during rehabilitation. Fresh placentas were recovered at harbor seal haul-out sites. Tissues collected for histopathology were stored in 10% neutral buffered formalin. Tissues collected for bacterial isolation and other tests were stored frozen (−30 or −40 C). Using methods described above, blood also was collected from live and dead stranded animals.

Serum was tested at the Washington Department of Agriculture (Olympia, Washington) for antibodies to Brucella using a previously described method (Garner et al., 1997), identified as suitable for detecting antibodies to marine Brucella (Nielsen, 2002). Animals were considered suspect positive if the buffered plate agglutination test antigen (BAPA) or brucellosis card test using buffered Brucella antigen (BBA) detected antibodies. They were considered positive if they were positive on BAPA or BBA and also positive on either or both the complement fixation (CF) and the Rivanol (RIV; +50 to 200) precipitation tests.

To evaluate serology by location, age-class-adjusted serologic results from all sites sampled were lumped as a reference population. Serologic results from harbor seal haul-out sites were grouped based on harbor seal genetics (Huber et al., 2010; Lamont et al., 1996) and contaminant levels (Ross et al., 2004). Samples were divided into four locations (Fig. 1): South Puget Sound (SPS; 3 sites), Hood Canal (HC; 4 sites), Washington Outer Coast (WOC; 13 sites), and the Northwest Straits (NWS; 4 sites).

Bacterial isolation and identification were performed at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (Ames, Iowa) with the addition of Columbia agar with 5% blood (Alton et al., 1988; Ewalt et al., 1983; Ewalt 1989). Tissues were dissected, mixed with approximately 2 mL of sterile phosphate buffered saline (pH 7.2), macerated, and inoculated onto tryptose agar with 5% bovine serum and antibiotics (7.5 U/mL bacitracin, 30 µg/mL cycloheximide, and 1.8 U/mL polymyxin B); tryptose agar with 5% bovine serum, antibiotics, and ethyl violet; Ewalt's media; Farrell's media; and Columbia agar with 5% blood. Plates were incubated for 14 days in 10% CO₂ at 37 C and observed for growth at 7 and 14 days. Bacterial isolates were circular, convex, smooth, translucent, off-white/honey colored. After 7 days colonies of average size consistent with Brucella (1.5–2 mm diameter) were counted and recorded, and representative colonies were transferred for identification (Mayfield et al., 1990).

Marine Brucella isolates were confirmed with the following tests: growth in the presence of basic fuchsin (1∶25,000 and 1∶100,000), thionin (1∶25,000 and 1∶100,000), and thionin blue (1∶500,000); growth on medium containing penicillin (5 units/mL) or erythritol (1 mg/mL and 2 mg/mL plus 5% bovine serum); urease and catalase activity; H₂S production; and CO₂ dependence. Biotyping was conducted as previously described (Alton et al., 1988). The dominant antigen was determined with an agglutination test using A- and M- monospecific antisera (1∶50-1∶200) and R antiserum (1∶25-1∶100). Isolates were tested for susceptibility to lysis by the following phages: Tbilisi (Tb), Firenze (Fi), Weybridge (Wb), S708, Me/75, D, BK₂, R, R/C, and R/O.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was conducted at Animal Health Center (AHC) and Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration (MAIE) using previously described PCR techniques for Brucella (AHC; Bricker et al., 2000) and real-time PCR (qPCR) analysis using primers, probe, and adapted protocols targeting the gene for a 31 kDa outer membrane protein bcsp31 specific to the genus Brucella (MAIE; Probert et al., 2004, Sidor et al., 2013).

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and select sections were also stained with Giemsa and with Brown and Brenn. Immunohistochemistry was performed on a subset of culture-positive cases. Tissue sections were mounted on charged slides, deparaffinized, hydrated with a buffer (PBS), treated with 3% H₂O₂ (5 min) to quench endogenous peroxidase, incubated for 5 min at 37 C with nonimmune goat serum, rinsed, and incubated for 30 min at 37 C with a polyclonal antibody (1∶10,000) prepared against B. abortus. Amplification was conducted with biotinylated, goat origin, anti-rabbit immunoglobulin (Ig), and peroxidase-labeled streptavidin; the chromagen was 3-amino-9 ethylcarbazole in N, N-dimethylformamide. Sections were counterstained with Gill II hematoxylin. Nonimmunized rabbit Ig fraction was substituted for primary antibody as a negative control (Garner et al., 1997).

The chi-square test of independence was used to evaluate sex predilection for animals that were serologically positive for Brucella antibodies, and to evaluate sex predilection for animals that were culture-positive or negative for marine Brucella. Chi-square tests also were used to evaluate serologic and culture-positive animals by age class. For comparing serologic results among the four locations sampled (SPS, HC, WOC, and NWS), direct standardization was used to remove the biasing effect of age structure. Using chi-square tests, the number of serologically positive animals in each subpopulation was compared to the predicted number of positive animals based on the single standard population, which was developed by grouping the four populations (Jeckel et al., 2001).

Between 1993 and 2006, 1,314 serum samples were collected from live healthy harbor seals captured at 24 haul-out sites from four discrete locations (Fig. 1): SPS (n = 826), HC (n = 212), WOC (n = 116), and NWS (n = 160). One hundred were antibody-positive, 101 suspect, and 1,113 negative animals. When suspects were lumped with negative animals, no sex predilection was detected with 7.4% of males (n = 50) and 7.8% of females (n = 50) positive (χ² = 0.0813, df = 3, P = 0.994). The distribution of animals with Brucella antibodies was significantly different among age classes (χ² = 229.078, df = 4, P<0.001) with 0.4% of pups, 17.2% of weaned pups, 37.7% of yearlings, 21.5% of subadults, and 2.4% of adults positive (Fig. 2).

Compared to the overall reference population, antibody prevalence was different by subregion (χ² = 7.259, df = 3, P = 0.064; Table 1). The SPS had a higher number of positive animals than predicted, while HC, WOC, and NWS animals had fewer.

Of 1,314 harbor seals sampled, 79 samples came from 39 animals that were captured and sampled more than once. Twenty-eight (72%) of these animals were negative for antibodies to Brucella at first capture and again on subsequent captures. Two pups (5%; one newly weaned, SPENO904, the other nursing, SPENO1873) were negative on initial capture but then suspect 2 wks and 4 yr later, respectively. Six animals (15%) were suspect or positive initially and negative at a later capture. One animal (SPENO902) was suspect when captured as a subadult and again 4 yr later, and negative when recaptured the following year as an adult. A subadult (SPENO933) and adult (SPENO938) were suspect on initial capture and negative subsequently 3 and 1 yr later, respectively. Three animals were positive initially and then negative, including a weaned pup (SPENO987) recaptured as a subadult 2 yr later, another weaned pup (SPENO1630) recaptured as an adult 5 yr later, and an adult (SPENO1010) estimated to be 4 yr old at initial capture and recaptured 2 yr later. Three animals (8%) were suspect or positive initially and remained so at recapture including an adult (SPENO277) and yearling (SPENO899) with suspect titers initially, and then again when recaptured 4 yr and 2 wks later, respectively, and a yearling (SPENO854) that was positive when captured and again as an adult 4 yr later.

Between 1996 and 2004 Brucella was cultured from 18 of 102 harbor seals tested (Table 2; Fig. 3). All isolates were CO_2-required, H2S-negative, urease-positive, catalase-positive, basic fuchsin-positive, thionin blue-positive, thionin-positive, penicillin-positive, erythritol-positive, dominant antigen A, no to partial lysis of Brucella phage, rifampacin-negative, Wb-negative, Fi-negative, delta-negative, BK2-positive, R/O-negative, S708-negative, Me/75-negative, and R/C-negative. Based on biochemical tests and origin (seals), the species was identified as B. pinnipedialis (Foster et al., 2007). Of the seals tested, 14% of males (8/57) and 24% of females (10/42) were positive. Both animals of unknown sex were negative. No sex predilection was detected (χ² = 3.948, df = 3, P = 0.267). Distribution of culture-positive animals by age class was significantly different (χ² = 19.018, df = 3, no yearlings sampled, P<0.001; Fig. 3), with B. pinnipedialis cultured from 37% of weaned pups (n = 46) and 25% of subadults (n = 4). Culture attempts were negative for all placentas (n = 24), fetuses/stillborn (n = 3) pups (n = 26), and adults (n = 23) sampled. B. pinnipedialis was cultured from 36 of 45 different tissues, organs, and parasites. The highest number of colonies cultured and the highest percentage of positive samples were from lung, mediastinal and pulmonary lymph nodes, vitreous humor, and lungworms (Table 2).

As tested at the AHC, four of the 336 harbor seals and none of 16 harbor seal placentas were positive for Brucella sp. by PCR on pooled tissues (typically brain, lung, liver, spleen and lymph node). At MAIE, four of 83 seals and none of eight placentas were positive for Brucella sp. by PCR. All four were weaned pups. Three of the four seals were confirmed positive by bacterial culture as well. The PCR-positive tissues included an abscess, brain, feces, kidney, liver, lung, lungworm (Otostrongulus circumlitus), lymph node (inguinal, mediastinal, mesenteric, and suprascapular), a reproductive tract, and spleen (Table 3; Fig. 4). The PCR failed to amplify Brucella nucleic acid from urinary bladder, vitreous humor, and whole blood (Table 3).

Between 1996 and 2007, necropsies were performed on 24 weaned pups and two subadult harbor seals (Table 4; Fig. 2) that were Brucella-positive by bacterial culture (n = 18) or PCR (n = 8). Common findings included verminous pneumonia (22/26) due to Parafilaroides spp., O. circumlitus, or a combination of the two, lymph node lymphoid hyperplasia (16/26), emaciation (12/26), enterocolitis (9/26), and gastritis (6/26) with gastrointestinal parasitism (acanthocephalans, unidentified nematodes, and trematodes; 5/26). Of the 21 culture- or PCR-positive animals that also were tested for Brucella antibodies, only 52% (n = 11) were positive, 33% (n = 7) were suspect positive, and 14% (n = 3) were negative (Table 4).

Immunohistochemistry exhibited positive staining in four of seven culture-positive cases (Table 4). Tissues staining positive included lung, lungworm (Parafilaroides spp.), lung abscess, spleen, and lymph nodes.

Of the 205 harbor seals (177 pups and 28 weaned pups) admitted into rehabilitation in Washington State between 1996 and 2004 and tested for Brucella antibodies, five of 28 weaned pups (18%) were positive. Four of five animals (WDFW97-4 reported in Garner et al., 1997, WDFW98-7, WDFW0404-08, and WH03-742; Table 4) were euthanized and necropsied. The fifth animal (WH02-687) was released after being surgically implanted with a VHF transmitter. Three of the four euthanized animals were positive for antibodies to Brucella on admission. The fourth (WH03-742) was negative for Brucella (BAPA and BBA) on 27 November 2003 at admission and seroconverted on 15 January 2004 (BAPA, RIV +50). It remained positive when retested on 5 February (BAPA, BBA, RIV and CF) and on four additional tests between February and April. Feces collected on 26 February 2004 were culture-positive for B. pinnipedialis, and the seal was euthanized (Table 4). The seal that was ultimately released (WH02-687) tested negative upon admission (BAPA negative) on 18 September 2002 and seroconverted on 5 December 2002 (BAPA, BBA, and RIV +200). It remained positive on five additional tests between January and May with no change in RIV titer. Attempts to culture Brucella from nasal and oral swabs were negative, and the seal was implanted with a subcutaneous VHF transmitter (Lander et al., 2005) and released. The seal's VHF radio signal was never detected post-release.

In Washington State, harbor seal exposure to Brucella pinnipedialis is widespread. Animals seroconvert after weaning and positive animals typically present with few pathologic lesions. Our data suggest exposure through foraging with the highest number of culture- and antibody-positive animals occurring after seals are weaned. The 0.4% of nursing pups with detectable Brucella antibodies likely represented passively acquired antibodies or exposure secondary to ingestion of infected prey items late in the preweaning stage. Low antibody prevalence in pups and lack of infection in placentas fail to support transplacental or transmammary transmission.

Adult harbor seals are primarily piscivorous, feeding on fish that are seasonally abundant (Olesiuk et al. 1990; Lance et al., 2012), suggesting fish as a possible route of B. pinnipedialis exposure. Weaned pups also consume shrimp (Pandalus spp.), crabs (Cancer spp.), and other invertebrates (Lambourn, unpubl. data), suggesting invertebrate consumption also might play a role in B. pinnipedialis transmission. Serologic data (Fig. 2) are consistent with Brucella seroconversion beginning at weaning, with a higher number of yearlings than weaned pups showing exposure due to an increased opportunity for encountering the bacterium through feeding over time. Using competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (cELISA), Zarnke et al. (2006) found similar serologic results with Brucella antibody prevalence in harbor seals from Alaska increasing from 11% in pups to 70% in yearlings, 68% for subadults, and dropping to 43% in adults. Our age-class–dependent culture results mimic our serologic results with the exception of culture data from yearling harbor seals due to lack of samples.

The marine origin competitive ELISA that is more sensitive than the serology used in this study (Meegan et al., 2010) was not available when this work commenced. Evaluating serology from culture- and PCR-positive animals necropsied in this study corroborates the work of Meegan et al. (2010) and suggests that the serology used for B. abortus underestimates the number of infected animals by about 50%. Consequently infection in weaned pups, yearlings, and subadults is likely higher than indicated by our serologic results (Fig. 2). Future efforts should use more specific independent competitive immunoassays such as the competitive and indirect ELISA used to test harbor seals from Alaska (Zarnke et al., 2006) and Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) (Nielsen et al., 2005).

Two of five Brucella-infected harbor seals in rehabilitation seroconverted almost 7 wk post-admission. Because the serologic tests used underestimate positive animals by 50%, this could represent a type-2 testing error. Alternately, it could suggest that infection occurred very close to the time of admission and could not be detected for several months, that it was infected by a fish fed while in rehabilitation, or that alternate modes of transmission for B. pinnipedialis exist.

If harbor seals remain infected or produce anti-Brucella antibodies for life, we would have expected to see higher numbers of culture- and antibody-positive adults. Young harbor seals infected with B. pinnipedialis could have higher mortality rates than those not infected, reducing antibody prevalence in older animals. Alternately, it is possible that young infected animals cease to produce Brucella antibodies, or clear infection and become serologically negative. Data from one recaptured animal (SPENO854) that was positive as a yearling and again as an adult 4 yr later show that seals can maintain Brucella titers for at least 4 yr. However, in three other recaptured animals, Brucella antibodies had waned when the seals were retested 2 yr (SPENO987, SPENO1010) and 5 yr (SPENO1630) later. It is unknown if seals can clear infection and be reinfected and what the consequent antibody response could be.

Since harbor seals are exposed to B. pinnipedialis after they began to forage, fish or invertebrates could be involved in B. pinnipedialis transmission. There are no known sex-based dietary preferences in harbor seals. Our findings of no sex predilection for Brucella exposure or infection and similar findings by Nielsen et al. (2001) are consistent with this. The next step is to attempt to identify B. pinnipedialis in fish or invertebrate prey.

The lungworms O. circumlitus and Parafilaroides spp., which are transmitted to seals via fish, could also be responsible for B. pinnipedialis transmission. We identified B. pinnipedialis in three of six lungworms tested by culture (Table 2) and two of two tested by PCR (Table 3). Immunohistochemistry also exhibited staining in lung, lungworm (Parafilaroides spp.) and lung abscesses associated with Parafilaroides spp. Lungworm transmission of Brucella has been suggested for harbor seals (Garner et al., 1997) and for harbor porpoise (Dawson et al., 2008); however, more work is required to determine the role that lungworms play in Brucella transmission. Verminous pneumonia was identified as the most common pathologic finding in positive seals and is consistent with findings from harbor seals in Scotland (Foster et al., 2002); however, verminous pneumonia is a common finding in weaned and yearling stranded harbor seals, not all of which are infected with B. pinnipedialis. For example, between 2000 and 2006, lungworms were identified in nine of 90 harbor seals that stranded in San Juan County and were necropsied (Gaydos, unpubl. data). All seals were weaned pups or yearlings except for one adult. Species identified included O. circumlitus (n = 2), Parafilaroides gullundae (n = 1), Parafilaroides gymnurus (n = 1), and unidentified Parafilaroides (n = 7). One animal was coinfected with O. circumlitus and P. gymnurus and another with O. circumlitus and an unidentified Parafilaroides. Of nine animals infected with one or more species of lungworm, six were diagnosed with verminous pneumonia, but Brucella infection was identified by PCR or bacterial culture in only three animals, all of which had lungworms and were diagnosed with verminous pneumonia, suggesting a 50% coinfection rate for verminous pneumonia and Brucella. Testing known or putative intermediate fish hosts for Parafilaroides spp. and O. circumlitus (Bergeron et al., 1997) for B. pinnipedialis is a good starting point for better understanding the relationship between the fish, lungworms, and transmission of B. pinnipedialis. The definitive life cycles for these metastrongyloids are not well known, and testing should include invertebrates, as they too could be intermediate or paratenic hosts (Bergeron et al., 1997).

If harbor seals are exposed to Brucella via ingestion of prey, humans also could potentially be exposed to marine Brucella by consuming uncooked marine fish or invertebrates. None of the three documented cases of community-acquired marine Brucella infection in humans had prior exposure to marine mammals (Sohn et al., 2003; McDonald et al., 2006). People also could be exposed to marine Brucella via the environment. We cultured B. pinnipedialis from the feces of 33% of infected harbor seals tested and isolated marine Brucella nucleic acid from the feces of 33% of infected harbor seals tested. Seals defecating on docks and beaches could expose humans to B. pinnipedialis without their being aware of the infection source. The potential for humans to be exposed to B. pinnipedialis without apparent exposure to harbor seals warrants additional research to uncover the history of infected humans and to better understand the putative role that marine fishes and invertebrates could play in the transmission of this potentially zoonotic bacterium to the public. Physicians should be made aware that, where clinical signs warrant, marine Brucella should be considered a differential diagnosis, even in patients from countries considered Brucella-free because of the absence of Brucella of livestock or domestic animal origin.

Based on our current understanding of B. pinnipedialis epizootiology, laboratory workers, biologists, veterinarians, and wildlife rehabilitators who work with harbor seals or seal samples likely have the highest risk for exposure, especially when working with weaned harbor seal pups and yearlings. We cultured or detected marine Brucella by PCR from tonsil, salivary gland, lung, urinary bladder, and feces of infected animals, suggesting that oral secretions, bites, urine, and feces are potential sources for human exposure from live seals.

South Puget Sound had a higher number of animals serologically positive for Brucella than predicted (Table 1). This warrants further investigation. Genetics and contaminant work suggest the four regions sampled represent discrete harbor seal subpopulations. One hypothesis for higher antibody prevalence in SPS could be the possibility of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mediated immunotoxicity increasing B. pinnipedialis infection rates. Harbor seals in SPS are more heavily contaminated with high levels of PCBs than seals from NWS and WOC (Ross et al., 2004). Harbor seal PCB contaminant levels in SPS approach the threshold for PCB immunotoxicity, suggesting that young seals from this region could be more vulnerable to diseases, including infection with B. pinnipedialis, because of reduced immunocompetence (Ross et al., 2004).

It has been suggested that marine Brucella infection in endangered southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) could reduce their fecundity and ultimately the population's recovery (Gaydos et al., 2004). Killer whales could carry or be exposed to B. ceti but could also be exposed to B. pinnipedialis through occasional predation of young harbor seals (Gaydos et al., 2005 and unpubl. data) or more likely through consumption of fish (Ford et al., 1998), if fish are in fact involved in B. pinnipedialis transmission.

Harbor seals are exposed to and infected with B. pinnipedialis after being weaned when they begin foraging for fish and invertebrates, supporting the hypothesis that marine fish or invertebrates are responsible for transmitting this bacterium between seals. This bacterium is considered enzootic within the harbor seal population, yet seals are currently at carrying capacity (Jeffries et al., 2003), suggesting that B. pinnipedialis is likely not affecting seal populations in Washington State. The presence of this pathogen in harbor seals, the potential transmission through feces, urine, and oral secretions, and marine fish or invertebrates as vectors of B. pinnipedialis indicate the importance of understanding the epizootiology of this bacterium and of evaluation of the risk it poses to humans, domestic animals, and sympatric endangered species.

All samples were collected under permits from the National Marine Fisheries Service (Scientific Research Permits 835, 782-1446, 782-1702). Funding and support for this work was provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, and the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. In-kind support was provided by the SeaDoc Society, a program of the U.C. Davis Wildlife Health Center. We thank the agencies and individuals that have helped with harbor seal captures and stranding response, including personnel from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada); and Cascadia Research, particularly: T. Cyra, J. Evenson, H. Huber, K. Hughes, M. Lance, B. Murphie, B. Norberg, D. Nysewander, and J. Pierce. We also thank the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network participants including the Central Puget Sound Marine Mammal Stranding Network, the San Juan County Marine Mammal Stranding Network, the Whale Museum and Cascadia Research, especially J. Huggins, S. Murphy S. Norman, R. Osborne, and A. Traxler. The rehabilitation staff at the Progressive Animal Welfare Society, Wolf Hollow Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, and Sarvey Wildlife Rehabilitation Center helped collect samples and care for seals in rehabilitation, especially D. Deghetto, J. Huckabee, and S. Lockwood. S. Gaydos and I. Vilchis provided statistical consultation. A number of laboratories and researchers provided expertise in disease screening and interpretation of results, including the Washington Department of Agriculture, the US Department of Agriculture, the National Veterinary Service Laboratory, Northwest ZooPath, Phoenix Central Laboratory, Animal Health Centre, and Mystic Aquarium.