Scinovex

Research article · 2026 · Full text

International Journal of Biology Sciences

Seroprevalence and risk factor analysis of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus in peri-domestic environments of Southeastern Australia

Thomas Mitchell-ParkerSarah Henderson-Clarke

Volume 8(6) · Pages 229–232 · DOI: 10.33545/26649926.2026.v8.i6c.903 ↗

Research areasViral Infections and VectorsZoonotic diseases and public healthVirology and Viral Diseases

↓ Read full-text PDF0 citations

Abstract

Author-written

Rodent-borne zoonotic diseases constitute an escalating public health challenge in peri-domestic environments where expanding human settlements increasingly encroach upon natural rodent habitats. The present research investigated the seroprevalence of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) and associated risk factors among human populations with varying levels of rodent exposure in southeastern Australia. A cross-sectional seroepidemiological survey was conducted among 640 participants from five occupational and residential risk categories between May 2023 and April 2024. Serum samples were tested for LCMV-specific IgG antibodies using a validated immunofluorescence assay. The overall human seroprevalence was 8.6% (55/640), with the highest rates observed among livestock farmers (31.2%) and grain storage workers (26.8%). Multivariate analysis identified occupational rodent contact, household rodent infestation history, rural residence, and age 40-60 years as independent risk factors. These findings demonstrate significant LCMV exposure in Australian peri-domestic populations and underscore the need for targeted risk communication and rodent management programs.

Summary

Source-checked

Plain-language reading of the full paper, prepared with AI and checked against the text. Each point links to the authors' own words.

  1. Why it matters

    • Zoonotic diseases carried by rodents are a growing public health concern as human housing expands into natural rodent habitats. View evidence ↗

      Why it matters

      Zoonotic diseases carried by rodents are a growing public health concern as human housing expands into natural rodent habitats.

      In the paper's own words

      “Rodent-borne zoonotic diseases constitute an escalating public health challenge in peri-domestic environments where expanding human settlements increasingly encroach upon natural rodent habitats.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) is a global pathogen that often goes undiagnosed and can cause conditions ranging from mild infections to fatal disease in immunocompromised people. View evidence ↗

      Why it matters

      Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) is a global pathogen that often goes undiagnosed and can cause conditions ranging from mild infections to fatal disease in immunocompromised people.

      In the paper's own words

      “Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV), a member of the family Arenaviridae, represents a globally distributed yet consistently underdiagnosed rodent-borne pathogen with the capacity to cause a spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from subclinical infection to severe meningoencephalitis and fatal disease in immunocompromised hosts [2].”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • While LCMV is found worldwide, there has been very little research on its epidemiology specifically within Australia. View evidence ↗

      Why it matters

      While LCMV is found worldwide, there has been very little research on its epidemiology specifically within Australia.

      In the paper's own words

      “Despite its worldwide distribution, the epidemiology of LCMV in the Australian context has received remarkably limited attention.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
  2. The question

    • The study aimed to measure the prevalence of LCMV antibodies in southeastern Australian populations based on rodent exposure and to identify the risk factors linked to positive results. View evidence ↗

      The question

      The study aimed to measure the prevalence of LCMV antibodies in southeastern Australian populations based on rodent exposure and to identify the risk factors linked to positive results.

      In the paper's own words

      “The present research was designed to determine the seroprevalence of LCMV-specific antibodies among human populations stratified by rodent exposure risk levels in southeastern Australia and to identify demographic, occupational, and environmental risk factors associated with seropositivity.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
  3. What they did

    • Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of 640 participants across five different risk categories from May 2023 to April 2024. View evidence ↗

      What they did

      Researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of 640 participants across five different risk categories from May 2023 to April 2024.

      In the paper's own words

      “A cross-sectional seroepidemiological survey was conducted among 640 participants from five occupational and residential risk categories between May 2023 and April 2024.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Materials and Methods

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗
    • The 640 participants (aged 18-75) were divided equally into five groups of 128: livestock farmers, grain storage workers, suburban residents, rural households, and urban apartment residents. View evidence ↗

      What they did

      The 640 participants (aged 18-75) were divided equally into five groups of 128: livestock farmers, grain storage workers, suburban residents, rural households, and urban apartment residents.

      In the paper's own words

      “A total of 640 participants aged 18-75 years were recruited through stratified purposive sampling into five risk categories: livestock farmers (n = 128), grain storage workers (n = 128), suburban residents (n = 128), rural households (n = 128), and urban apartment residents (n = 128).”

      Page 2

      Found in: Materials

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
    • The study used an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) with LCMV-infected Vero E6 cell substrate slides to detect specific IgG antibodies. View evidence ↗

      What they did

      The study used an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) with LCMV-infected Vero E6 cell substrate slides to detect specific IgG antibodies.

      In the paper's own words

      “LCMV-specific IgG antibodies were detected using an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) with LCMV-infected Vero E6 cell substrate slides (EUROIMMUN AG).”

      Page 2

      Found in: Methods

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
    • Independent risk factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression analyzed with SPSS 28.0, with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. View evidence ↗

      What they did

      Independent risk factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression analyzed with SPSS 28.0, with a significance threshold of p < 0.05.

      In the paper's own words

      “Multivariate logistic regression identified independent risk factors, with significance at p < 0.05. Analysis used SPSS 28.0.”

      Page 2

      Found in: Methods

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
  4. What they found

    • The overall seroprevalence of LCMV among the 640 participants was 8.6% (55/640). View evidence ↗

      What they found

      The overall seroprevalence of LCMV among the 640 participants was 8.6% (55/640).

      In the paper's own words

      “The overall LCMV seroprevalence among the 640 participants was 8.6% (55/640; 95% CI: 6.5-11.1%).”

      Page 2

      Found in: Results

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
    • Seroprevalence was highest among livestock farmers (31.2%) and grain storage workers (26.8%), and lowest among urban apartment residents (8.2%). View evidence ↗

      What they found

      Seroprevalence was highest among livestock farmers (31.2%) and grain storage workers (26.8%), and lowest among urban apartment residents (8.2%).

      In the paper's own words

      “Seroprevalence varied substantially across risk groups, with livestock farmers demonstrating the highest rate at 31.2% (40/128), followed by grain storage workers at 26.8% (34/128), rural households at 14.6% (19/128), suburban residents at 18.4% (24/128), and urban apartment residents at 8.2% (10/128) (Table 1).”

      Page 2

      Found in: Results

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
    • Independent risk factors for seropositivity included occupational rodent contact (OR=4.86), household rodent sightings more than twice weekly (OR=3.42), rural residence (OR=2.18), and being aged 40-60 years (OR=2.64). View evidence ↗

      What they found

      Independent risk factors for seropositivity included occupational rodent contact (OR=4.86), household rodent sightings more than twice weekly (OR=3.42), rural residence (OR=2.18), and being aged 40-60 years (OR=2.64).

      In the paper's own words

      “Multivariate logistic regression identified occupational rodent contact (OR = 4.86; p < 0.001), household rodent sightings exceeding twice weekly (OR = 3.42; p = 0.002), rural residence (OR = 2.18; p = 0.014), and age 40-60 years (OR = 2.64; p = 0.006) as independent risk factors for LCMV seropositivity (Table 2).”

      Page 2

      Found in: Methods

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
    • The highest seroprevalence by age was found in the 50-60-year cohort at 31.2%, with rates decreasing in older groups. View evidence ↗

      What they found

      The highest seroprevalence by age was found in the 50-60-year cohort at 31.2%, with rates decreasing in older groups.

      In the paper's own words

      “Age-stratified analysis demonstrated peak seroprevalence in the 50-60-year cohort (31.2%), declining in older age groups.”

      Page 2

      Found in: Results

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 2 ↗
  5. What it means

    • The authors conclude that the high rates among livestock and grain workers necessitate including LCMV risk in workplace health and safety frameworks for these industries. View evidence ↗

      What it means

      The authors conclude that the high rates among livestock and grain workers necessitate including LCMV risk in workplace health and safety frameworks for these industries.

      In the paper's own words

      “The significantly elevated seroprevalence among livestock farmers (31.2%) and grain storage workers (26.8%) highlights the occupational dimension of LCMV risk that warrants integration into workplace health and safety frameworks for agricultural and food storage industries [6].”

      Page 3

      Found in: Discussion

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 3 ↗
    • The study indicates significant LCMV exposure in Australian peri-domestic areas, highlighting a need for rodent management programs and targeted risk communication. View evidence ↗

      What it means

      The study indicates significant LCMV exposure in Australian peri-domestic areas, highlighting a need for rodent management programs and targeted risk communication.

      In the paper's own words

      “These findings demonstrate significant LCMV exposure in Australian peri-domestic populations and underscore the need for targeted risk communication and rodent management programs.”

      Page 1

      Found in: Introduction

      Read it in the full textOpen PDF at page 1 ↗

Visual summary

2 visuals

Illustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.

Replotted from source data
Replotted from Table 1 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.↗ Enlarge
Seroprevalence (%): Livestock farmers vs Grain storage workers vs Suburban residents vs Rural households vs Urban apartment
Replotted from Table 1 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Replotted from Table 1 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Seroprevalence (%): Livestock farmers vs Grain storage workers vs Suburban residents vs Rural households vs Urban apartment

Replotted from Table 1 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

View source evidence ↗
Replotted from source data
Replotted from Table 2 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.↗ Enlarge
OR: Direct rodent handling vs ≥ 2/week in home vs 40-60 years vs Rural
Replotted from Table 2 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Replotted from Table 2 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

OR: Direct rodent handling vs ≥ 2/week in home vs 40-60 years vs Rural

Replotted from Table 2 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

View source evidence ↗

Figures & tables

From the original paper
LCMV seroprevalence across occupational and residential risk groupsTable 1Page 2Independent risk factors for LCMV seropositivity in multivariate analysisTable 2Page 2LCMV seroprevalence distribution across demographic risk groupsFigure 1Page 2Age-dependent seroprevalence pattern of LCMV among surveyed participantsFigure 2Page 3
FULL TEXT Original article · reflowed for reading

Introduction

The expanding interface between human settlements and natural ecosystems poses an escalating threat of zoonotic disease emergence and re-emergence, with rodent-borne pathogens representing a particularly significant concern due to the ubiquitous presence of commensal rodent species in peri-domestic environments worldwide [1] . Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV), a member of the family Arenaviridae, represents a globally distributed yet consistently underdiagnosed rodent-borne pathogen with the capacity to cause a spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from subclinical infection to severe meningoencephalitis and fatal disease in immunocompromised hosts [2] . Despite its worldwide distribution, the epidemiology of LCMV in the Australian context has received remarkably limited attention. Australia's unique biogeographical history resulted in the absence of native murid rodents, with Mus musculus and Rattus species introduced through European colonization now establishing extensive commensal and feral populations across diverse Australian landscapes [3] . The seroprevalence of LCMV among human populations with occupational or residential exposure to these introduced rodent reservoirs has not been systematically investigated in the Australian setting [4] . The present research was designed to determine the seroprevalence of LCMV-specific antibodies among human populations stratified by rodent exposure risk levels in southeastern Australia and to identify demographic, occupational, and environmental risk factors associated with seropositivity.

Materials and Methods

The cross-sectional seroepidemiological investigation was conducted across the Greater Melbourne metropolitan area and surrounding rural districts of Victoria, Australia, between May 2023 and April 2024. The protocol received ethical approval from the Melbourne Institute of Public Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval No. HREC/2023/MIPHS-064) and complied with the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines.

Materials

A total of 640 participants aged 18-75 years were recruited through stratified purposive sampling into five risk categories: livestock farmers (n = 128), grain storage workers (n = 128), suburban residents (n = 128), rural households (n = 128), and urban apartment residents (n = 128). Venous blood samples (10 mL) were collected by trained phlebotomists, and serum was separated and stored at -20 °C within 4 hours.

Methods

LCMV-specific IgG antibodies were detected using an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) with LCMVinfected Vero E6 cell substrate slides (EUROIMMUN AG). Sera were screened at 1:16 dilution and titrated to endpoint in positive samples. A structured questionnaire captured demographic data, occupational history, household rodent sighting frequency, food storage practices, and dwelling construction type. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent risk factors, with significance at p < 0.05. Analysis used SPSS 28.0.

Results

The overall LCMV seroprevalence among the 640 participants was 8.6% (55/640; 95% CI: 6.5-11.1%). Seroprevalence varied substantially across risk groups, with livestock farmers demonstrating the highest rate at 31.2% (40/128), followed by grain storage workers at 26.8% (34/128), rural households at 14.6% (19/128), suburban residents at 18.4% (24/128), and urban apartment residents at 8.2% (10/128) (Table 1). 2). Age-stratified analysis demonstrated peak seroprevalence in the 50-60-year cohort (31.2%), declining in older age groups.

Table 1. LCMV seroprevalence across occupational and residential risk groups
Risk GroupParticipants (N)Seropositive (N)Seroprevalence (%)OR (95% CI)
Livestock farmers1284031.25.24 (2.48-11.06)
Grain storage workers1283426.84.12 (1.92-8.84)
Suburban residents1282418.42.54 (1.14-5.66)
Rural households1281914.61.92 (0.84-4.38)
Urban apartment128108.2Reference

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image
LCMV seroprevalence across occupational and residential risk groups↗ Enlarge
Table 1
LCMV seroprevalence across occupational and residential risk groups

LCMV seroprevalence across occupational and residential risk groups

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper tableSource PDF · page 2 ↗

Discussion

The present research demonstrates for the first time that LCMV exposure among Australian peri-domestic populations is more widespread than previously assumed, with an overall seroprevalence of 8.6% comparable to rates reported from European populations [5] . The significantly elevated seroprevalence among livestock farmers (31.2%) and grain storage workers (26.8%) highlights the occupational dimension of LCMV risk that warrants integration into workplace health and safety frameworks for agricultural and food storage industries [6] . The identification of occupational rodent contact as the strongest independent risk factor (OR = 4.86) is consistent with findings from European serosurveys and underscores that direct and indirect exposure to rodent excreta, particularly through aerosolized urine and contaminated grain dust, constitutes the primary transmission pathway [7] . The peak seroprevalence in the 40-60 age cohort likely reflects cumulative lifetime exposure rather than age-related susceptibility, as LCMV IgG antibodies persist for extended periods following infection [4] .

Risk communication framework

The findings necessitate development of targeted risk communication strategies for identified high-risk populations. Agricultural workers should receive training on rodent-proofing grain storage facilities, appropriate personal protective equipment use during activities generating rodent-contaminated dust, and recognition of LCMV clinical symptoms warranting medical attention [8] .

Conclusion

Conclusion

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsFinancial support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council is acknowledged. The Melbourne Institute of Public Health Sciences provided laboratory and administrative support. The authors thank all study participants for their cooperation.

Figures and tables from the paper

Table 2. Independent risk factors for LCMV seropositivity in multivariate analysis
Risk FactorCategoryOR95% CIp-value
Occupational contactDirect rodent handling4.862.62-9.02< 0.001
Rodent sightings≥ 2/week in home3.421.84-6.360.002
Age group40-60 years2.641.32-5.280.006
Residence typeRural2.181.17-4.060.014
Food storageOpen/unsealed1.860.98-3.540.058

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image
Independent risk factors for LCMV seropositivity in multivariate analysis↗ Enlarge
Table 2
Independent risk factors for LCMV seropositivity in multivariate analysis

Independent risk factors for LCMV seropositivity in multivariate analysis

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper tableSource PDF · page 2 ↗
Figure 1. LCMV seroprevalence distribution across demographic risk groups
LCMV seroprevalence distribution across demographic risk groups↗ Enlarge
Figure 1
LCMV seroprevalence distribution across demographic risk groups

LCMV seroprevalence distribution across demographic risk groups

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 2 ↗
Figure 2. Age-dependent seroprevalence pattern of LCMV among surveyed participants
Age-dependent seroprevalence pattern of LCMV among surveyed participants↗ Enlarge
Figure 2
Age-dependent seroprevalence pattern of LCMV among surveyed participants

Age-dependent seroprevalence pattern of LCMV among surveyed participants

Open full-size image ↗
Original paper figureSource PDF · page 3 ↗

References

11 in the original paper
  1. Meerburg BG, Singleton GR, Kijlstra A. Rodent-borne diseases and their risks for public health. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2009;35(3):221-270.
  2. Bonthius DJ. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus: an underrecognized cause of neurologic disease. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2012;19(3):89-95.
  3. Singleton GR, Krebs CJ, Davis SA, Chambers LK, Brown PR. Reproductive changes in fluctuating house mouse populations in southeastern Australia. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2001;268(1477):1741-1748.
  4. Pal M, Gutama KP, Singh S, Ketchakmadze D, Durglishvili N. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis: an emerging and re-emerging rodent-borne viral zoonotic disease. J Adv Microbiol Res. 2022;3(2):1-4.
  5. Lledo L, Gegundez MI, Saz JV, Bahamontes N, Beltran M. LCMV infection in a province of Spain. J Med Virol. 2003;70(3):451-455.
  6. Childs JE, Glass GE, Korch GW, Ksiazek TG, Leduc JW. LCMV infection and house mouse distribution in urban Baltimore. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1992;47(1):2734.
  7. Fischer SA, Graham MB, Kuehnert MJ, et al. Transmission of LCMV by organ transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(21):2235-2249.
  8. Mills JN, Childs JE. Ecologic studies of rodent reservoirs: relevance for human health. Emerg Infect Dis. 1998;4(4):529-537.
  9. Barton LL, Mets MB, Beauchamp CL. LCMV: emerging fetal teratogen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(6):1715-1716.
  10. Charrel RN, de Lamballerie X. Zoonotic aspects of arenavirus infections. Vet Microbiol. 2010;140(34):305-311.
  11. Rabiee MH, Mahmoudi A, Siahsarvie R, Mostafavi E. Rodent-borne diseases in Iran. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(4):e0006256.