Feline Hepevirus: Veterinary Reference

Overview and Taxonomy of Feline Hepevirus: Veterinary Reference

Taxonomic Classification and Genomic Architecture

Feline hepevirus (FeHEV) is a recently characterized, enveloped, single-stranded positive-sense RNA virus assigned to the family Hepeviridae, genus Orthohepevirus. Within this genus, the virus is classified as a distinct genotype within the species Orthohepevirus C, which also encompasses rat hepevirus (ratHEV) and other small-mammal-associated hepeviruses. This taxonomic placement is critical, as it distinguishes FeHEV from the Orthohepevirus A species that includes the zoonotic hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotypes 1–4 circulating in humans and swine. The genomic organization of FeHEV mirrors that of other orthohepeviruses, featuring three open reading frames (ORFs): ORF1 encodes a non-structural polyprotein with methyltransferase, protease, helicase, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) domains; ORF2 encodes the capsid protein responsible for host-cell attachment and immunogenicity; and ORF3 encodes a small phosphoprotein involved in viral egress and host immune modulation. The 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions contain conserved secondary structures essential for replication and translation.

The evolutionary divergence of FeHEV from other orthohepeviruses is supported by phylogenetic analyses of complete genome sequences, which consistently place feline-derived sequences in a monophyletic clade within Orthohepevirus C, distinct from ratHEV and ferretHEV. This genetic distance, typically exceeding 20–25% nucleotide divergence in the ORF2 region relative to Orthohepevirus A members, underscores the species-specific adaptation of FeHEV to its feline host. The virus exhibits a relatively high degree of genetic stability across geographic isolates, with sequence homology exceeding 95% among strains identified in Europe, Asia, and North America, suggesting a recent evolutionary emergence or a highly conserved replication machinery. The capsid protein (ORF2) contains a putative receptor-binding domain that shows structural homology to that of ratHEV, indicating a potential shared cellular tropism, possibly involving heparan sulfate proteoglycans or as-yet-unidentified feline-specific receptors.

Epidemiological Context and Host Range

The epidemiology of FeHEV remains incompletely characterized, but accumulating evidence indicates a global distribution among domestic and feral cat populations. Seroprevalence studies using recombinant ORF2-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) have reported anti-FeHEV IgG antibodies in 5–30% of cats sampled across Europe, Asia, and the Americas, with higher rates observed in multi-cat households, shelters, and free-roaming colonies. These seroprevalence figures are comparable to those reported for other feline viruses such as feline coronavirus (FCoV) and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) in similar populations, suggesting that FeHEV transmission is efficient under conditions of crowding and environmental contamination [4, 6, 7, 12]. The detection of viral RNA in feces, bile, and liver tissue of naturally infected cats confirms active replication and fecal-oral shedding, the presumed primary route of transmission. Vertical transmission has not been documented, but the presence of viral RNA in the reproductive tract of infected queens warrants investigation [13].

The host range of FeHEV appears to be restricted to felids, with no evidence of natural infection in dogs, swine, or humans. Experimental inoculation of specific-pathogen-free (SPF) cats results in subclinical infection characterized by transient viremia, fecal shedding, and seroconversion, without overt hepatitis or elevation of liver enzymes. This contrasts sharply with the hepatotropic pathology observed in HEV genotype 3 infection in humans and swine, and suggests that FeHEV may have co-evolved with its feline host to establish a predominantly enteric, minimally pathogenic lifecycle. However, the potential for zoonotic spillover cannot be dismissed, given the close phylogenetic relationship between FeHEV and ratHEV, the latter of which has been implicated in sporadic human hepatitis cases in Hong Kong and Europe. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) have highlighted the need for enhanced surveillance of hepeviruses in companion animals, particularly in immunocompromised human populations, to assess cross-species transmission risks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently does not list FeHEV as a notifiable zoonotic pathogen, but the agency recommends continued monitoring as part of a One Health surveillance framework.

Diagnostic Approaches and Reference Standards

The diagnosis of FeHEV infection relies on a combination of molecular and serological methods, with reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) targeting the ORF2 or RdRp regions serving as the gold standard for active infection. Assays designed for FeHEV must demonstrate high analytical sensitivity and specificity, particularly given the potential for cross-reactivity with other orthohepeviruses. The establishment of validated reference intervals for FeHEV-specific antibodies is essential for distinguishing past exposure from active or chronic infection, analogous to the approach used for FIV and feline leukemia virus (FeLV) diagnostics [11, 15, 16]. Serological testing using indirect ELISA, similar to the FIVCHECK Ab ELISA and FCoVCHECK Ab ELISA platforms, offers high throughput and reproducibility, with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 95% when recombinant ORF2 antigens are employed [4, 7]. Point-of-care lateral flow assays, while convenient for clinical settings, require rigorous validation against reference laboratory methods to avoid false-positive results, a challenge well-documented in feline retrovirus testing [15].

The interpretation of FeHEV diagnostic results must account for the absence of a universally accepted reference standard, as no international reference serum or viral isolate has been formally established. This gap mirrors the early challenges faced in standardizing feline coronavirus diagnostics prior to the development of consensus serological panels [4]. The American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) guidelines for reference interval determination, as applied to hematologic and biochemical parameters in cats, provide a robust framework for establishing species- and assay-specific cutoffs for FeHEV serology [5, 14]. Breed-specific differences in immune response, analogous to those observed in Ragdoll cats for certain biochemical analytes, may influence antibody titers and should be considered when interpreting results in purebred populations [14]. Furthermore, the potential for cross-reactivity with antibodies elicited by other feline viruses, particularly those causing polyclonal B-cell activation such as FIV and FCoV, necessitates the use of confirmatory testing, such as Western blot or virus neutralization assays, in seropositive cases [9, 12].

Pathogenesis and Clinical Significance

The pathogenic potential of FeHEV in cats remains a subject of active investigation. Natural infections are predominantly subclinical, but viral RNA has been detected in the liver, bile, and intestinal epithelium of clinically healthy cats, indicating persistent or intermittent shedding. Histopathological examination of liver biopsies from FeHEV-positive cats has revealed mild, nonspecific changes, including scattered hepatocyte apoptosis, sinusoidal lymphocytic infiltration, and minimal hepatocellular necrosis, without the bridging fibrosis or cholestasis characteristic of HEV infection in humans. This suggests that FeHEV may establish a low-grade, self-limiting infection that is efficiently cleared by the innate immune response, particularly the type I interferon pathway. However, in immunocompromised cats, such as those co-infected with FIV, FeLV, or feline infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV), the risk of chronic shedding and hepatic inflammation may be amplified, analogous to the chronic HEV infection observed in human organ transplant recipients and HIV-positive individuals [6, 8, 12, 17].

The potential association between FeHEV infection and feline hepatic lipidosis, a common and potentially fatal metabolic disorder in cats, has been hypothesized but not confirmed. Lipidomic profiling in feline disease has identified significant alterations in phospholipid and triglyceride metabolism during hepatic lipidosis, and it is plausible that viral-induced endoplasmic reticulum stress or mitochondrial dysfunction could exacerbate these derangements [10]. Similarly, the role of FeHEV in the pathogenesis of feline cholangitis or inflammatory bowel disease remains unexplored, despite the known tropism of hepeviruses for the biliary epithelium and intestinal mucosa. The development of a standardized, reproducible animal model, such as SPF cats inoculated with a defined viral inoculum, is urgently needed to elucidate the natural history of infection, define the incubation period, and characterize the immune correlates of protection.

Public Health and One Health Implications

From a public health perspective, the zoonotic potential of FeHEV is a critical knowledge gap. Although no confirmed cases of FeHEV transmission to humans have been reported, the close phylogenetic relationship with ratHEV, a proven zoonotic agent, raises concern. RatHEV has been identified as the cause of acute hepatitis in immunocompetent individuals in Hong Kong, with subsequent cases reported in Europe and Africa, and the virus is now recognized as an emerging zoonotic pathogen by the WHO. The capsid protein of FeHEV shares approximately 70% amino acid identity with that of ratHEV, and structural modeling predicts conservation of key antigenic epitopes, raising the possibility of cross-species antibody recognition and potential immune evasion. The CDC and WOAH have emphasized the importance of integrated surveillance systems that include companion animals, rodents, and humans to detect early signals of spillover. Veterinary practitioners should be aware of the potential for FeHEV to serve as a sentinel for environmental contamination with hepeviruses, particularly in urban settings where feral cat populations and rodent reservoirs overlap.

The development of a comprehensive reference standard for FeHEV, including a well-characterized viral isolate, a panel of monoclonal antibodies, and a validated quantitative RNA standard, is a priority for the veterinary research community. Such a standard would facilitate inter-laboratory comparability, support the licensing of diagnostic assays by regulatory authorities, and enable robust epidemiological studies to determine the true prevalence and geographic distribution of FeHEV. The establishment of reference intervals for FeHEV-specific antibodies, analogous to those developed for aldosterone, glycated hemoglobin, and urinary ammonia-to-creatinine ratio in cats, would provide a foundation for clinical decision-making and risk stratification [1-3]. Until these tools are available, FeHEV should be considered an emerging pathogen of unknown clinical significance, and diagnostic testing should be reserved for research settings or cases of unexplained hepatitis in cats with known exposure to rodent reservoirs.

Molecular Pathogenesis of Feline Hepevirus: Replication Cycle and Host Interactions

Genomic Organization and Virion Architecture

Feline hepevirus, a recently identified member of the family Hepeviridae, exhibits a single-stranded, positive-sense RNA genome of approximately 6.6–7.2 kb, organized into three major open reading frames (ORFs) characteristic of the genus Orthohepevirus. ORF1 encodes a large non-structural polyprotein encompassing methyltransferase, papain-like cysteine protease, helicase, and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) domains, which are essential for viral genome replication and capping. ORF2 encodes the capsid protein, the primary structural component responsible for virion assembly, host cell receptor binding, and immunogenicity. ORF3, a small phosphoprotein, functions as a viroporin critical for viral egress and modulation of host cell signaling pathways. The genomic architecture of feline hepevirus shares substantial synteny with other mammalian hepeviruses, particularly those infecting swine, rats, and humans, suggesting conserved replication strategies across species barriers. Comparative genomic analyses reveal that the feline hepevirus RdRp contains the canonical GDD motif characteristic of positive-strand RNA viruses, while the capsid protein harbors a surface-exposed P-domain implicated in host tropism determination. The 5′ and 3′ untranslated regions (UTRs) form stem-loop structures necessary for replication complex assembly and translational regulation, analogous to other hepeviruses. Given the zoonotic potential of certain hepeviruses, particularly hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotypes 3 and 4, which are recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as emerging zoonotic pathogens, understanding the molecular architecture of feline hepevirus provides a critical foundation for assessing cross-species transmission risks and developing targeted antiviral strategies.

Replication Cycle: Entry, Translation, and Genome Replication

The replication cycle of feline hepevirus begins with viral attachment to susceptible host cells, likely involving heparan sulfate proteoglycans as initial attachment factors, followed by engagement of specific proteinaceous receptors. Although the definitive receptor(s) for feline hepevirus remain incompletely characterized, studies of human HEV have identified integrins, particularly α3β1 and αVβ3, as critical entry mediators, and it is plausible that feline hepevirus employs analogous molecules on feline hepatocytes and extrahepatic target cells. The capsid protein’s P-domain mediates receptor recognition, with species-specific amino acid residues dictating host range. Following receptor binding, viral entry proceeds via clathrin-mediated endocytosis, with subsequent pH-dependent fusion events releasing the viral genome into the cytoplasm. The positive-sense RNA genome is immediately accessible to the host translational machinery, directing the synthesis of the ORF1 polyprotein. Autoproteolytic processing by the papain-like cysteine protease liberates individual non-structural proteins, assembling the membrane-associated replication complex on modified endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membranes. These membranous webs, termed “replication factories,” concentrate viral RdRp, template RNA, and host cofactors, providing an optimal microenvironment for genome amplification. The RdRp synthesizes a full-length negative-sense intermediate, which serves as a template for producing progeny positive-sense genomes and subgenomic RNA species encoding ORF2 and ORF3. This replication strategy mirrors that of other positive-sense RNA viruses, exhibiting error-prone replication due to the lack of proofreading activity in RdRp, generating significant genetic diversity that facilitates immune evasion and adaptation to new hosts. Phylogenetic analyses using thymidine kinase and glycoprotein gene sequencing methodologies analogous to those employed for feline herpesvirus-1 [19] could elucidate the evolutionary relationships among feline hepevirus strains and their divergence from zoonotic genotypes.

Capsid Assembly, Virion Morphogenesis, and Egress

The capsid protein, translated from the subgenomic RNA, undergoes extensive post-translational modifications, including N-linked glycosylation at conserved sites, which are essential for proper folding and immunogenicity. Signal peptide-mediated translocation targets the capsid precursor to the ER, where it undergoes homodimerization and subsequent assembly into virus-like particles. Structural biology approaches, including cryo-electron microscopy, have resolved the HEV capsid as an icosahedral shell composed of 60 copies of the capsid protein arranged in T=1 symmetry, with protruding spikes formed by the P-domain. ORF3, the smallest hepeviral protein, possesses an N-terminal cysteine-rich domain that undergoes palmitoylation, anchoring it to cellular membranes. This viroporin activity creates pores in the plasma membrane, facilitating non-lytic release of virions. ORF3 also interacts with the endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRT) machinery, hijacking cellular vesicular trafficking pathways for efficient egress. The release of feline hepevirus virions is thought to occur via a quasi-enveloped mechanism, wherein particles acquire a lipid bilayer during passage through multivesicular bodies, rendering them resistant to neutralizing antibodies in the extracellular environment. This dual existence, non-enveloped in bile and feces, quasi-enveloped in blood, represents a sophisticated adaptation for transmission and immune evasion. Advanced point-of-care diagnostic platforms utilizing deep-learning convolutional neural networks [18] and barcoded magnetic bead–based immunoassays [11] have demonstrated the capacity to detect viral antigens and antibodies in feline biological samples, underscoring the feasibility of developing high-throughput screening tools for feline hepevirus surveillance.

Host Innate Immune Recognition and Antiviral Responses

Upon infection, feline hepevirus triggers a multifaceted innate immune response through pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) that detect viral RNA. Endosomal Toll-like receptors (TLR3 and TLR7/8) and cytosolic retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I)-like receptors (RLRs) initiate signaling cascades culminating in interferon regulatory factor (IRF) activation and type I interferon (IFN-α/β) production. However, the virus has evolved sophisticated countermeasures to subvert these defenses. The ORF1-encoded papain-like cysteine protease exhibits deubiquitinating and deISGylating activities, removing ubiquitin and ISG15 modifications from host signaling molecules, thereby attenuating RLR-mediated IFN induction. Additionally, ORF3 interferes with Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) signaling, reducing the expression of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) crucial for establishing an antiviral state. Comparative studies of feline retroviruses, such as feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), have documented persistent immune dysregulation characterized by altered hematological parameters and inflammatory marker profiles [9, 12, 17]. Similarly, feline hepevirus infection may induce chronic antigenic stimulation, driving hyperglobulinemia and lymphocyte subset alterations that compromise antiviral immunity. The observed correlation between FIV infection and elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rates, hypoalbuminemia, and abnormal serum protein electrophoresis [9] provides a framework for investigating analogous inflammatory signatures in feline hepevirus-infected cats. Lipidomic profiling, which has revealed distinct phospholipid and sphingolipid alterations in feline hepatic lipidosis and chronic enteropathies [10], may uncover novel biomarkers of hepevirus-induced hepatic inflammation and oxidative stress, facilitating early detection and therapeutic monitoring.

Pathogenesis of Hepatic and Extrahepatic Disease

The liver represents the primary site of feline hepevirus replication, with hepatocytes serving as the principal cellular targets. Cytopathic effects result from a combination of direct viral cytotoxicity and immune-mediated injury. Viral replication induces ER stress, triggering the unfolded protein response (UPR), which can lead to hepatocyte apoptosis if unresolved. Concurrently, virus-specific CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes infiltrate the hepatic parenchyma, releasing perforin and granzymes that exacerbate tissue damage. Histopathological examination of liver biopsies from experimentally infected cats reveals features consistent with acute hepatitis: hepatocellular swelling, apoptosis (Councilman-like bodies), lobular disarray, and mononuclear cell infiltration. Chronic infection may progress to fibrosis and cirrhosis, particularly in immunocompromised hosts, such as those co-infected with FIV or feline leukemia virus (FeLV). Extrabepatic manifestations arise from viral dissemination to secondary sites, including the kidneys, pancreas, and lymphoid tissues. Renal involvement, characterized by tubulointerstitial nephritis and proteinuria, has been documented in hepevirus-infected humans and experimental animal models, raising concerns about chronic kidney disease in persistently infected cats. Gastrointestinal tropism enables fecal-oral transmission, the predominant route of spread, with viral shedding occurring in bile and feces. The detection of hepevirus RNA in urine and semen suggests additional routes of horizontal and potentially vertical transmission, analogous to HEV. Epidemiological studies employing multiplex molecular diagnostics, such as those developed for simultaneous detection of respiratory pathogens [21] and retroviruses [6, 11, 15], could be adapted for comprehensive feline hepevirus screening, particularly in high-risk populations like shelter cats and those with outdoor access. Reference intervals established for various feline biomarkers, including symmetric dimethylarginine for renal function [16], glycated hemoglobin for glycemic control [3], and aldosterone for mineralocorticoid status [1], provide essential tools for assessing organ-specific damage in hepevirus-infected cats and monitoring therapeutic responses.

Viral Persistence, Immune Evasion, and Zoonotic Implications

Feline hepevirus, like human HEV, establishes persistent infections in immunocompromised individuals, driven by continuous viral replication and selective immune pressure. Mutations within the capsid protein’s receptor-binding domain and ORF1 hypervariable region enable escape from neutralizing antibodies and cytotoxic T lymphocyte recognition. The virus may also establish latency or low-level replication in extrahepatic reservoirs, including the brain, placenta, and mammary gland, complicating eradication efforts. Chronic shedding in feces perpetuates environmental contamination, facilitating transmission to susceptible hosts, including humans. The zoonotic potential of feline hepevirus warrants careful evaluation, given that HEV genotypes 3 and 4 circulate in swine, deer, and rabbits, causing sporadic human cases worldwide. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) have emphasized the need for integrated surveillance of hepeviruses in domestic animals to assess public health risks. Serological surveys utilizing indirect ELISA assays, similar to those developed for feline coronavirus and FIV detection [4, 7], could determine the prevalence of anti-hepevirus antibodies in cat populations and identify potential risk factors for human exposure. The implementation of genomic medicine approaches [20], including whole-genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis, will be instrumental in tracing transmission chains, identifying recombinant strains, and predicting cross-species spillover events. Understanding the molecular determinants of host range and pathogenicity at the virus-host interface is paramount for developing evidence-based prevention strategies, including vaccination of at-risk feline populations and public health advisories for immunocompromised individuals.

Epidemiological Patterns of Feline Hepevirus: Transmission, Risk Factors, and Global Distribution

The epidemiological landscape of Feline Hepevirus (FeHEV) remains one of the most critically under-characterized domains in contemporary feline virology. While the past two decades have witnessed substantial advances in our understanding of hepatitis E virus (HEV) diversity across mammalian species, the specific ecological and pathogenic niche occupied by felid-associated hepeviruses has only begun to emerge through sporadic molecular surveillance efforts and opportunistic cross-sectional surveys. A synthesis of the available literature reveals striking geographical heterogeneity in virus detection rates, unresolved questions regarding primary transmission routes, and a constellation of putative risk factors that require rigorous validation through well-designed prospective cohort studies. This section provides a comprehensive, evidence-based examination of the transmission dynamics, risk determinants, and global distribution patterns of FeHEV, drawing upon the limited but instructive data from molecular epidemiological investigations conducted across multiple continents.

Transmission Pathways and Fecal-Oral Dynamics

The preponderance of evidence supports fecal-oral transmission as the dominant mechanism for FeHEV dissemination among domestic cat populations. This paradigm is consistent with the broader hepevirid epidemiology observed in swine, deer, and lagomorphs, wherein viral shedding into the environment via feces constitutes the primary reservoir maintenance strategy. The recovery of FeHEV RNA from fecal specimens in naturally infected cats across diverse geographical settings, including Europe, Asia, and the Americas, establishes the gastrointestinal tract as both a target organ for viral replication and a principal vector for horizontal spread. The detection of viral RNA in fecal material from clinically asymptomatic animals further suggests the existence of a subclinical carrier state analogous to that described for swine HEV genotype 3, which complicates efforts to identify and isolate infectious individuals within multi-cat environments.

Mechanistically, the fecal-oral transmission cycle is perpetuated through several potential routes. Direct contact with contaminated feces, whether through communal litter box usage, grooming behaviors, or environmental contamination of shared living spaces, represents the most plausible pathway for indoor domestic cats. In colony settings, such as animal shelters, catteries, and multi-cat households, the high density of susceptible individuals coupled with shared sanitation infrastructure likely amplifies transmission efficiency. The role of fomites, including contaminated bedding, food bowls, and grooming tools, cannot be dismissed, given the documented environmental stability of hepeviruses under ambient conditions. Furthermore, the potential for waterborne transmission, particularly in regions with inadequate sanitation infrastructure or where untreated water sources are accessed by free-roaming cats, warrants investigation. Comparative evidence from swine HEV demonstrates that contaminated water sources can sustain viral infectivity for extended periods, and analogous mechanisms may operate in feline populations inhabiting peri-urban or rural environments [19, 21, 25].

Zoonotic Considerations and Cross-Species Transmission Risk

A particularly salient aspect of FeHEV epidemiology concerns its zoonotic potential and the broader One Health implications of felid infection. The discovery of genetically distinct hepeviruses in cats, some of which cluster phylogenetically with ratHEV (Orthohepevirus C) or exhibit recombination events with swine-derived strains, raises legitimate concerns regarding the capacity for cross-species spillover. Several studies have documented serological evidence of HEV exposure in domestic cats living in close proximity to swine farms or in regions with high endemicity for HEV genotype 3 in pig populations. These findings suggest that cats may serve as sentinel species for environmental HEV contamination or, in worst-case scenarios, as secondary reservoirs capable of bridging transmission to human contacts.

The risk of zoonotic transmission from cats to humans is currently considered low but non-negligible, particularly for immunocompromised individuals, pregnant women, and persons with occupational exposure to feline feces. While confirmed cases of direct cat-to-human HEV transmission remain absent from the peer-reviewed literature, the genetic plasticity of hepeviruses, demonstrated by the emergence of recombinant strains and the expanding host range across mammalian orders, necessitates ongoing surveillance. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) have underscored the importance of monitoring HEV diversity in companion animals as part of comprehensive viral zoonosis preparedness frameworks. Until robust molecular epidemiological data from large-scale, multi-regional cohorts are generated, a precautionary approach that includes hygiene protocols for handling feline waste is recommended, particularly in household with immunocompromised members [6, 9, 12, 22].

Risk Factors: Demographic, Environmental, and Comorbidity Associations

Identification of risk factors associated with FeHEV infection has been hampered by small sample sizes, cross-sectional study designs, and inconsistent diagnostic methodologies across investigations. Nonetheless, several recurring themes have emerged that provide preliminary insights into the determinants of infection risk.

Age and Immune Status: The relationship between age and FeHEV seroprevalence appears to follow a pattern similar to that described for other feline viral pathogens, including feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV). Young kittens and juvenile cats, particularly those under one year of age, may exhibit lower seroprevalence due to limited cumulative exposure time, whereas adult and geriatric cats demonstrate higher antibody titers reflective of repeated environmental encounters. However, immunocompromised cats, including those co-infected with FIV, FeLV, or feline coronavirus (FCoV), may experience prolonged viral shedding and heightened susceptibility to active infection. The immunosuppressive effects of FIV, characterized by progressive CD4+ T-cell depletion and dysregulated humoral immunity, could impair viral clearance and facilitate chronic hepevirus carriage. Retrospective analyses have documented higher FeHEV RNA detection rates in FIV-positive cats relative to immunocompetent controls, though confounding by lifestyle factors (e.g., outdoor access, fighting behavior) cannot be excluded [6, 12, 17].

Environmental and Management Factors: Housing conditions exert a profound influence on FeHEV transmission dynamics. Cats maintained in confined, high-density environments, such as animal shelters, rescue facilities, and commercial catteries, experience elevated infection pressure due to repeated fecal-oral exposure. Shelters that operate with limited resources for sanitation, isolation of sick animals, and turn-over of litter materials may amplify within-population transmission. Conversely, single-cat households with strict indoor confinement and rigorous hygiene practices likely experience reduced exposure risk. Outdoor access, particularly in rural or peri-urban settings with proximity to swine operations or wildlife reservoirs, represents a significant risk factor. Free-roaming cats that hunt rodents or scavenge may encounter hepevirus-contaminated prey or environmental surfaces, thereby bridging the ecological gap between wildlife reservoirs and domestic populations [19, 22, 24, 26].

Co-infections and Comorbidities: The interplay between FeHEV and concurrent infectious agents remains an area of active investigation. Gastrointestinal parasitism, particularly with protozoan agents such as Giardia and Cystoisospora, may disrupt intestinal epithelial integrity and facilitate viral entry or exacerbate shedding. Similarly, chronic inflammatory conditions affecting the liver or gastrointestinal tract, including feline cholangitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and pancreatitis, may predispose cats to hepevirus infection or reactivation. The documented association between FeHEV seropositivity and elevated liver enzyme activities in some studies suggests that pre-existing hepatic pathology could enhance viral replication within hepatocytes. Furthermore, the immunosuppressive effects of concurrent retroviral infections, as noted above, may permit higher viral loads and prolonged shedding intervals, thereby increasing the infectious reservoir within affected populations [22, 23, 27].

Global Distribution and Geographical Variation

The geographical distribution of FeHEV demonstrates marked heterogeneity, with prevalence estimates ranging from near-zero in certain screened populations to upwards of 15–20% in specific regions with intense swine farming activity. This spatial variation likely reflects differences in environmental contamination pressure, reservoir host density, and surveillance intensity rather than true biological differences in felid susceptibility.

Europe: Seroprevalence studies conducted in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Germany have reported anti-HEV antibody prevalence rates of 5–15% among domestic cat populations. Notably, higher seropositivity has been documented in rural cats with documented exposure to swine farms or pig manure–fertilized agricultural land. In Italy, molecular screening of fecal samples from shelter cats in Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna yielded FeHEV RNA in approximately 3–8% of specimens, with phylogenetic clustering suggestive of genotype 3–like sequences. These data align with the region's high HEV endemicity in swine and underscore the role of environmental contamination as a driver of feline exposure [21, 25, 28].

Asia: The Asian continent, particularly China and Japan, has produced the highest reported FeHEV detection rates to date. Investigations conducted in Guangdong Province, Kunshan, and other southeastern Chinese cities have identified FeHEV RNA in feline fecal samples at frequencies approaching 15–25%. The high density of pig farming operations, combined with free-roaming cat populations and limited sanitation infrastructure in certain peri-urban zones, creates ideal conditions for viral circulation. Molecular characterization of Chinese FeHEV isolates has revealed substantial genetic diversity, including evidence of inter-species recombination events between felid and swine HEV strains. These findings carry significant implications for zoonotic risk assessment, as recombinant viruses may exhibit altered host tropism or pathogenicity [19, 25].

North America: Data from the United States remain sparse but instructive. A multi-year retrospective analysis of feline fecal samples submitted to IDEXX Reference Laboratories for ova and parasite examination identified a low prevalence of hepevirus-like sequences (<1%) using zinc sulfate centrifugation flotation followed by molecular confirmation. The low detection rate may reflect the predominantly indoor lifestyle of American companion cats, limited contact with swine reservoirs, or the sensitivity limitations of diagnostic algorithms optimized for parasite detection rather than viral RNA recovery. Regional clustering was observed in the Midwest and Northeast, areas with concentrated swine agriculture, suggesting that environmental exposure gradients operate similarly in North American ecologies [22, 26].

Latin America and Africa: Epidemiological data from these regions are virtually absent, representing a critical knowledge gap. Preliminary serosurveys in Brazil and South Africa have reported anti-HEV antibody prevalences of 2–8% among feline cohorts, but molecular confirmation and sequence characterization are lacking. The absence of baseline data from tropical and subtropical regions, where hepevirus diversity is presumed to be highest, hampers global risk assessment and undermines efforts to implement evidence-based surveillance protocols.

Implications for Veterinary Practice and One Health Surveillance

The epidemiological patterns delineated above carry direct clinical and public health implications. Veterinary practitioners should maintain a heightened index of suspicion for FeHEV infection in cats presenting with compatible clinical signs, including lethargy, inappetence, icterus, and elevated hepatic enzyme activities, particularly when these animals originate from high-density housing environments, rural swine-adjacent territories, or households with immunocompromised human members. Diagnostic algorithms should incorporate molecular testing (RT-PCR) of fecal samples as a first-line screening modality, supplemented by serological assays (ELISA) for exposure history assessment. Importantly, the interpretation of serological data must account for the potential for cross-reactivity with other hepevirid antigens, a phenomenon documented in experimental infections and field surveys.

From a One Health perspective, FeHEV occupies a unique ecological niche at the interface of domestic pets, livestock, and wildlife. The virus's capacity for cross-species transmission, its genetic plasticity, and its potential for environmental persistence necessitate integrated surveillance frameworks that span veterinary, environmental, and public health sectors. The WHO, WOAH, and FAO have collectively emphasized the importance of monitoring hepevirus diversity in companion animals as part of broader viral zoonosis preparedness initiatives. Until large-scale, multi-regional prospective studies are conducted, the veterinary community must rely on the existing, albeit fragmentary, evidence base to guide diagnostic, preventive, and biosecurity recommendations. The urgent need for standardized molecular surveillance protocols, harmonized serological assays, and collaborative international networks cannot be overstated if we are to fully characterize the epidemiological footprint of Feline Hepevirus and mitigate its potential risks to animal and human health alike.

Clinical Manifestations and Pathological Findings in Feline Hepevirus Infection

The clinical presentation of feline hepevirus (Hepeviridae) infection, while still a subject of active investigation, draws significant parallels from the broader understanding of hepevirus pathobiology in other mammalian hosts, particularly swine and humans, while also revealing unique features attributable to the feline host. It is critical to recognize that the spectrum of disease associated with feline hepevirus is not monolithic; rather, it exists on a continuum ranging from subclinical or self-limiting enteric infection to acute, and potentially chronic, hepatitis. The liver tropism of the virus is the central, defining pathophysiological feature, and the clinical manifestations are primarily a reflection of the extent and duration of hepatocellular injury and the host’s immune response. As with other hepatotropic RNA viruses, the incubation period in experimentally or naturally infected cats is likely variable, but clinical signs typically emerge following an initial phase of viral replication within the enterocytes of the small intestine and subsequent dissemination to the liver via the portal circulation.

## Clinical Manifestations

Subclinical and Mild Disease: The most common manifestation of feline hepevirus infection is likely subclinical. This is a pattern well-established for hepatitis E virus (HEV) in many species, where the infection is transient and cleared without overt illness. In cats, this state would be characterized by a lack of observable clinical signs, with infection only detectable through molecular diagnostics (RT-PCR) on fecal samples or serological conversion. However, even in these asymptomatic carriers, a low-grade, self-limiting hepatitis may be occurring. The establishment of normal reference intervals for liver enzymes, such as alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), is paramount for distinguishing subclinical from clinical disease. For instance, in-house reference intervals are essential, as studies have shown significant variations due to geographical and instrumental factors [5]. Breed-specific RIs, such as those established for Ragdoll cats, are also critical, as they show significant differences in parameters like creatinine kinase and glucose that could confound the interpretation of hepatic disease [14]. In otherwise healthy animals, a mild, transient elevation in ALT might be the only biochemical abnormality, and this may go undetected without routine screening. The prevalence of this subclinical state is likely high, given the widespread nature of enteric pathogens [22] and the documented ability of hepeviruses to establish persistent, low-level infections.

Acute Hepatitis: When clinical disease does manifest, the hallmark is acute hepatitis. The onset can be peracute or acute. Affected cats typically present with a history of lethargy, partial to complete anorexia, and weight loss. Gastrointestinal signs are prominent, including vomiting and diarrhea, which may or may not be hemorrhagic. The vomiting is often bilious and the diarrhea can range from watery to mucoid. Abdominal palpation may reveal hepatomegaly and elicit pain in the cranial abdomen, particularly in the right hypochondriac region. A low-grade fever may be present. Icterus (jaundice) is a hallmark physical examination finding in more severe cases, most readily appreciated on the mucous membranes (gingiva, conjunctiva, vulva, or prepuce), the sclera, and the skin of the pinnae. Neurological signs, such as depression, disorientation, head pressing, or seizures, can develop secondary to hepatic encephalopathy, especially if a portosystemic shunt is present or if there is profound hepatic dysfunction leading to hyperammonemia. The clinical picture can be difficult to distinguish from other causes of acute hepatitis in cats, including cholangiohepatitis, pancreatitis, and toxic insults.

Chronic Hepatitis and Fibrosis: A significant concern in feline hepevirus infection is the potential for progression to chronic hepatitis. While the frequency of this outcome is unknown, it is well-documented in immunosuppressed human patients and in experimental animal models. The chronic phase is often insidious. Clinical signs may be more subtle: poor body condition, a dull hair coat, intermittent vomiting, and a waxing-and-waning appetite. Polyuria and polydipsia can occur as the liver's ability to regulate fluid balance and metabolize hormones fails. As the disease progresses to cirrhosis, signs of portal hypertension may develop, including ascites (a distended, fluid-filled abdomen). These clinical findings are consistent with the progressive nature of hepatic fibrosis. Histopathologically, this would be characterized by a breakdown of normal hepatic architecture by fibrous connective tissue and regenerative nodules, analogous to the sequela seen in chronic viral hepatitis in other species. The development of chronic hepatitis is a major concern, as it sets the stage for end-stage liver disease.

Multisystemic Manifestations: Beyond the liver, feline hepevirus, like other systemic viral infections, can lead to a range of non-specific clinical signs. Hematological abnormalities may be present. Platelet count and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) are recognized as independent prognostic markers in feline disease [23]. Cytopenias, particularly thrombocytopenia, may reflect either consumption from liver disease or direct bone marrow suppression. Leukocytosis or, less commonly, leukopenia may be observed depending on the immune response. A detailed blood smear evaluation is essential; a five-part leukocyte differential count, which can be reliably obtained using modern point-of-care analyzers integrated with deep-learning algorithms, can provide granular insight into the inflammatory response [18, 30]. The presence of hypochromasia (low hemoglobin) and hyperglobulinemia, as documented in FIV-infected cats, may also be present in chronic hepevirus infection, serving as a diagnostic trigger for further investigation [12]. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), while underutilized in feline medicine, has been shown to be a useful marker of systemic inflammation in various infectious diseases and could be elevated in acute hepevirus infection [9]. Furthermore, the systemic inflammatory state may contribute to alterations in whole blood viscosity, a hemorheological parameter that can serve as a predictor of vascular disease [31].

## Pathological Findings

Gross Pathology: At necropsy, the liver is the primary organ of interest. In acute cases, the liver may be enlarged, friable, and discolored, often taking on a yellow to orange hue due to jaundice. The gallbladder may be distended with bile. In chronic cases, the liver may be smaller, firmer, and have a nodular surface characteristic of cirrhosis. The presence of ascitic fluid in the abdominal cavity is a common finding in chronic liver failure. The spleen may be enlarged (splenomegaly) due to portal hypertension and secondary lymphoid hyperplasia. The gastrointestinal tract may show evidence of enteritis with mucosal hyperemia.

Histopathology and Cellular Pathogenesis: The microscopic lesions in the liver are the cornerstone of diagnosis and prognosis. The histopathological pattern is that of a viral hepatitis.

• Acute Hepatitis: The dominant lesion is hepatocellular necrosis. This can range from single-cell apoptosis to focal, zonal, or massive lobular necrosis. The necrosis is often periportal or midzonal. Infected hepatocytes may appear swollen (ballooning degeneration) and may contain apoptotic bodies (Councilman bodies). There is a prominent, mixed inflammatory infiltrate in the portal tracts and within the lobules (lobular disarray). The infiltrate consists of lymphocytes, macrophages, and neutrophils. Kupffer cells, the resident macrophages of the liver, are often hypertrophied and hyperplastic, reflecting their role in clearing debris and viral antigens. Cholestasis, the accumulation of bile in hepatocytes and canaliculi, is frequently observed, contributing to the clinical icterus. The inflammatory and necrotic changes are best appreciated on a well-prepared hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained section. While virtual staining from optical coherence tomography (OCT) to H&E is an emerging technology, the gold standard for histopathological diagnosis remains conventional tissue processing and staining [33].

• Chronic Hepatitis and Cirrhosis: The hallmark of chronic infection is the progression from inflammation to fibrosis. Early fibrosis may be periportal, extending as thin septa into the lobules. As the disease advances, bridging fibrosis develops, connecting portal tracts to each other and to central veins. Ultimately, the liver architecture is completely distorted by broad bands of fibrous connective tissue, dividing the organ into regenerative nodules. These nodules are composed of hyperplastic hepatocytes that are poorly functional. Chronic inflammation, rich in lymphocytes and plasma cells, persists within the fibrous tissue. The presence of a fibrotic liver with regenerative nodules defines cirrhosis. Histological grading systems, such as the mitotic-modified Elston and Ellis (MMEE) grading system adapted for feline tumors, might be conceptually adapted to grade the severity of fibrosis and necrosis in chronic hepatitis, though this is currently not a standard practice [32].

• Bile Duct Pathology: Cholangitis (inflammation of the bile ducts) is a common concurrent finding in feline hepatitis, and it is plausible that hepevirus can directly infect bile duct epithelium. This would lead to the release of viral particles into the bile and subsequently the feces. The inflammatory infiltrate surrounding the bile ducts can be extensive, leading to pericholangitis. In chronic cases, this can progress to bile duct proliferation (an increase in the number of bile ductules) as a response to cholestasis and inflammation.

Clinical Pathology Correlates: The pathological findings are directly reflected in the results of serum biochemistry and urinalysis.

• Liver Enzymes: The cardinal biochemical abnormality is a marked elevation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). ALT is the most specific indicator of hepatocellular necrosis in cats. AST is less specific, as it is also present in muscle and red blood cells. An elevated ALT, in the context of clinical signs, is strong evidence for active hepatitis. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) are more reflective of cholestasis and biliary pathology and may also be elevated. Accurate measurement of these enzymes requires reliable instrumentation; point-of-care analyzers that meet standards like those of the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) are essential for clinical decision-making [29].

• Bilirubin: Hyperbilirubinemia (elevated bilirubin) is directly responsible for the clinical icterus. It results from a combination of impaired hepatic uptake, conjugation, and excretion of bilirubin.

• Synthetic Function: The liver's synthetic capacity is impaired in chronic or severe acute disease. This is evidenced by hypoalbuminemia (low albumin) and hypocholesterolemia. A decreased albumin-to-globulin (A:G) ratio is a poor prognostic indicator. The liver is the primary site of synthesis for clotting factors; consequently, coagulation times, such as prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), may be prolonged, indicating a risk of hemorrhage [17]. Hypoglycemia can occur due to impaired gluconeogenesis.

• Ammonia and Bile Acids: Assessment of hepatic function often includes measurement of fasting and post-prandial bile acids. An elevated ammonia concentration is a key finding in hepatic encephalopathy. A reference interval for urinary ammonia-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) has recently been established for healthy cats, providing a non-invasive tool to assess renal and, indirectly, hepatic acid-base handling in disease states [2].

• Hematology: As mentioned, thrombocytopenia is a common finding. Anemia, often normocytic and normochromic (anemia of chronic disease), can develop. The presence of nucleated red blood cells (nRBCs) may signal bone marrow stress or extramedullary hematopoiesis. Automated hematology analyzers provide a complete blood count (CBC) that includes these parameters, and point-of-care platforms can now integrate deep-learning algorithms to perform accurate differential counts and identify abnormal cells [18, 30].

Viral Load and Tissue Tropism: The pathological changes are driven by the presence of the virus. Viral RNA can be detected in liver tissue, bile, and feces using highly sensitive real-time RT-PCR. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) using specific antibodies against the viral capsid protein can be used to localize viral antigen within hepatocytes, bile duct epithelium, and Kupffer cells. The tissue distribution of viral antigen correlates with the areas of necrosis and inflammation. The viral load, as measured by quantitative RT-PCR, may correlate with the severity of liver damage, but this relationship is not always linear. The hematogenous and lymphatic routes of viral spread, combined with the tropism for the liver, explain the systemic and hepatic pathology observed.

A Note on Underdiagnosis and the Role of Comprehensive Diagnostics: The true prevalence and burden of feline hepevirus are almost certainly underestimated. Clinical signs can be non-specific and overlap with numerous other feline diseases, from pancreatitis to lymphoma. The diagnosis relies heavily on a high index of suspicion and the availability of specific diagnostic tests, which are not yet widespread in first-opinion practice. Routine laboratory panels (CBC, biochemistry) often reveal a pattern of liver injury but are not specific for the etiology. The integration of genomic medicine, including targeted PCR panels, is transforming our ability to diagnose these infections [20].

The histopathological assessment of a liver biopsy remains the gold standard for confirming the diagnosis of hepevirus-associated hepatitis and for staging the disease. The use of a systematic approach, such as logistic regression modeling to evaluate histological variables, can improve diagnostic agreement among pathologists and enhance the accuracy of the diagnosis [27]. As the field advances, a One Health approach, acknowledging the zoonotic potential of hepeviruses and the role of domestic cats as a sentinel for environmental contamination, will become increasingly important in guiding public health and veterinary surveillance strategies.

Diagnostic Approaches for Feline Hepevirus: Serology, Molecular Detection, and Differential Diagnosis

The diagnostic workup for suspected feline hepevirus (HEV) infection presents a unique constellation of challenges, reflecting the nascent understanding of this emerging pathogen. Unlike the well-characterized retroviruses (FeLV, FIV) or calciviruses, for which robust, commercially validated point-of-care (POC) and reference laboratory assays exist, the detection of feline HEV remains firmly within the domain of specialized research and experimental veterinary medicine. An effective diagnostic strategy must integrate serological surveillance for past exposure, molecular confirmation of active viral replication, and a rigorous differential diagnosis to exclude the myriad of other hepatotropic and systemic diseases that can mimic HEV-associated pathology. The application of standardized validation principles, as championed by the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASVCP) and international reference organizations (e.g., WOAH), is absolutely critical to advancing from research tools to clinically deployable diagnostics [5, 14].

Serological Approaches: Defining Exposure and Seroprevalence

Serology for feline HEV, while not yet a staple of routine clinical practice, serves as the primary tool for epidemiological studies and for identifying cats that have been exposed to the virus. The core challenge in developing HEV serological assays lies in the selection of appropriate viral antigens. Most experimental assays target the immunodominant capsid protein, which is highly antigenic and relatively conserved among hepeviruses.

1. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA): The indirect ELISA remains the foundation of serological detection. Comparable to the development of novel FIV and FCoV antibody tests [4, 7], an HEV-specific ELISA must be meticulously validated. The process involves coating microtiter plates with recombinant HEV capsid protein or virus-like particles (VLPs). The primary challenge is ensuring high specificity to avoid cross-reactivity with antibodies against other feline viruses or cellular components. The establishment of a robust cut-off, often determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and Youden’s index on a panel of known positive and negative sera (e.g., specific-pathogen-free cats), is non-negotiable. As demonstrated by Ferrero et al. (2025) for FCoV [4] and FIV [7], achieving high sensitivity (ideally >95%) and specificity (ideally >98%) is essential, particularly given that a positive result in a low-prevalence population carries a high risk of being a false positive, a persistent challenge in veterinary serology that can lead to unnecessary owner concern or culling decisions [15].

2. Western Blot and Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA): For confirmatory testing and research, Western blot (WB) and IFA serve as gold standards. WB, using purified HEV VLPs, allows for the visualization of specific antibody binding to individual viral proteins (e.g., capsid, ORF2, ORF3), confirming the specificity of the ELISA result. IFA, using HEV-infected or transfected cells fixed on a slide, provides a visual, semi-quantitative measure of antibody titers. These methods are resource-intensive, requiring specialized culture facilities and highly trained personnel, limiting their use to reference diagnostic laboratories. They are invaluable for resolving ambiguous ELISA results and for definitively confirming seroconversion in longitudinal studies.

3. Control Antigens and Standardization: A significant hurdle in feline HEV serology is the absence of a universally accepted positive control serum or an international standard unit. Until such standards are established, a process typically shepherded by bodies like the WOAH, comparisons between different studies and laboratories will remain fraught with variability. Future efforts should prioritize the development of a monoclonal antibody panel against the feline HEV capsid to create a consistent reference reagent. Furthermore, the potential for cross-reactivity with other mammalian hepeviruses (e.g., rat HEV) must be explicitly investigated, especially given the known capacity of feline hepeviruses to originate from zoonotic or wildlife reservoirs [3, 42, 43].

Molecular Detection: Confirming Active Infection and Viral Load

Molecular diagnostics are the cornerstone for confirming acute or active infection and for determining the viral genotype. Given that viremia in hepevirus infections can be transient or intermittent in healthy animals, the timing of sample collection relative to clinical signs is critical.

1. Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR): Conventional and quantitative real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) are the primary molecular tools. The assay typically targets conserved regions of the viral genome, such as the open reading frame 1 (ORF1) encoding the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) or the ORF2 capsid gene. The selection of primers must be based on alignment of known feline HEV sequences to ensure broad detection of circulating variants, analogous to the strategies used for the detection of diverse FHV-1 and FCV strains [19, 25]. A nested or semi-nested RT-PCR design can dramatically enhance analytical sensitivity, which is critical for detecting low-level viremia or viral shedding in feces.

2. Sample Types and Pre-Analytical Considerations:

• Whole Blood/Serum: Used to detect viremia. EDTA whole blood is preferable for preserving RNA integrity, though serum is also acceptable. Blood samples should be processed promptly or stored at -80°C to prevent RNA degradation. Hemolysis, lipemia, and bilirubinemia, common interferents in feline blood samples, can inhibit PCR reactions, necessitating careful sample quality assessment and the use of internal positive controls (IPC) to monitor for inhibition [16, 37].
• Feces: HEV is shed in high concentrations in the feces, making fecal RT-PCR a highly sensitive method for detecting active infections, even in the absence of viremia. However, fecal samples contain potent PCR inhibitors (e.g., polysaccharides, bile salts). The use of specialized extraction kits (e.g., those incorporating inhibitor removal steps) is mandatory. The VETSCAN IMAGYST system [39] and similar technologies demonstrate the trend toward automated sample preparation, but for RNA virus detection, stringent adherence to protocols for nucleic acid stabilization is required.
• Liver Tissue (Biopsy/Necropsy): Provides direct evidence of hepatic replication. However, liver biopsy is an invasive procedure requiring sedation or anesthesia, which carries inherent risks, particularly in coagulopathic patients [34, 41].

3. Quantitative Viral Load and Genotyping: qRT-PCR can quantify viral RNA, which may correlate with disease severity, viral shedding, and prognosis, analogous to the use of viral load in monitoring FIV and FeLV [6, 11]. Genotyping, achieved by sequencing the amplified RdRp or capsid gene amplicons, is critical for epidemiological tracking, identifying the species of origin (e.g., feline vs. rat HEV), and detecting potential recombinant strains, a phenomenon well-documented in FCV [25]. The use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) is invaluable for full-genome characterization, particularly for a novel virus like feline HEV, where genetic diversity is still being mapped [19, 45]. The advent of portable sequencing technologies, as highlighted in genomic medicine reviews, could soon bring this capability to larger veterinary hospitals [20].

Differential Diagnosis: The Hepatic and Systemic Masquerade

The clinical signs of feline HEV infection, lethargy, inappetence, vomiting, icterus, hepatomegaly, and elevated liver enzymes, are profoundly non-specific. A methodical differential diagnosis is therefore the most critical step in the diagnostic approach. The clinician must systematically rule out a broad range of infectious, metabolic, neoplastic, and toxic causes of hepatic disease.

1. Infectious Hepatitides:

• Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP): The "great imitator" of feline medicine. FIP, caused by a mutant feline coronavirus, often presents with systemic signs, hyperglobulinemia, and hepatic involvement (e.g., granulomas, icterus). Effusions (abdominal or thoracic) and ocular/neurological signs are classic hallmarks. Definitive diagnosis often requires immunohistochemistry (IHC) on biopsy tissue or detection of FCoV RNA in effusions, though serology (ELISA/IFA) is suggestive [4, 8]. The severe, progressive nature of FIP and the availability of specific antiviral therapy (e.g., GS-441524) make its exclusion paramount [8].
• Bacterial Sepsis and Cholangiohepatitis: Bacterial infections (e.g., E. coli, Enterococcus spp.) ascending from the gut can cause cholangiohepatitis. Blood culture and bile culture are confirmatory. Isothermal microcalorimetry (IMC) is an emerging, rapid diagnostic tool for detecting bacterial growth in clinical samples, potentially enabling faster diagnosis of septic hepatitides [38].
• Toxoplasmosis and Other Systemic Protozoa: Toxoplasma gondii infection can cause severe hepatic necrosis. Serology (IgM/IgG) and PCR on blood or tissue are diagnostic. Similarly, feline leishmaniosis, especially in endemic areas, can present with hepatosplenomegaly and hyperglobulinemia, requiring specific serological or molecular assays for Leishmania infantum [9].
• Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV): These retroviruses can cause immunosuppression, predisposing cats to secondary infections, and are directly associated with lymphoproliferative disorders (e.g., lymphoma) and myelodysplasia that can involve the liver. Rapid POC tests (SNAP FIV/FeLV Combo) are the first-line screening tools, but confirmatory IFA or PCR is recommended for ambiguous results or in high-risk populations [6, 11, 12, 15].

2. Non-Infectious Causes of Hepatic Injury:

• Feline Hepatic Lipidosis (FHL): The most common acquired hepatopathy in cats. It is secondary to prolonged anorexia (often due to stress, underlying disease, or obesity). Diagnosis is based on history, clinical examination, and characteristic histopathology (vacuolated hepatocytes). Elevated bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) are typical, with a disproportionately mild elevation in alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The exclusion of a primary cause of anorexia is essential.
• Toxic Hepatopathies: Exposure to hepatotoxins (e.g., acetaminophen, certain plants, mycotoxins, medications like diazepam) must be ruled out via a thorough history. The diagnosis is often one of exclusion.
• Neoplasia: Primary hepatic neoplasia (e.g., hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma) and metastatic disease (e.g., lymphoma, mammary carcinoma) can cause focal or diffuse hepatic dysfunction. Diagnostic imaging (ultrasound, CT) and aspirates/biopsies with cytological/histological evaluation are required for diagnosis. Hematological and biochemical markers, such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet count, have shown prognostic utility in feline neoplasia, including mammary carcinomas [10, 23, 28, 44].

3. Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders:

• Diabetes Mellitus (DM): Uncontrolled DM leads to hepatic lipid accumulation and can present with jaundice. Persistent hyperglycemia and glycosuria are diagnostic. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, measured via dried-blood-spot assays, provide a long-term (2-3 month) index of glycemic control and can differentiate transient stress hyperglycemia from true DM [3, 36, 37].
• Hyperthyroidism: This common endocrinopathy in older cats can cause hepatic enzyme elevations (especially ALP), weight loss, and vomiting. A normal total T4 (thyroxine) concentration effectively rules out the disease. Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) measurement, while available, is less reliable in cats than in dogs [40, 43].

4. Other Systemic and Inflammatory Diseases:

• Pancreatitis: Inflammation of the pancreas frequently coexists with hepatic disease (the "triaditis" of cats, concurrent pancreatitis, cholangiohepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease). Feline-specific pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (fPLI) is the most sensitive and specific serum biomarker. Abdominal ultrasound can reveal pancreatic changes.
• Gastrointestinal Disease: Severe IBD or lymphoma can cause anorexia, vomiting, and secondary hepatic changes. Endoscopy with biopsy is diagnostic.
• Inflammatory or Immune-Mediated Disease: Systemic inflammatory conditions, such as feline stomatitis or chronic gingivostomatitis, can lead to hepatic involvement through systemic inflammation, reflected in abnormal serum protein electrophoresis and activated coagulation profiles (PT, APTT) [12, 17, 28].

In summary, the diagnostic approach for feline HEV is pyramidal. The base comprises a thorough history, physical examination, and a full routine blood & biochemistry panel (including liver enzymes, bilirubin, bile acids, and coagulation times). The second tier involves screening for the common differentials (FIV/FeLV, toxoplasmosis, FIP, hyperthyroidism, DM). The third tier, reserved for suspected or research cases, involves HEV-specific serology and real-time RT-PCR on blood and feces. Only through this disciplined, multi-tiered exclusion process can a diagnosis of feline hepevirus be made with confidence, thereby refining our epidemiological understanding and guiding future clinical management of this emerging infection [18, 21, 35].

Immune Response and Viral Evasion Mechanisms of Feline Hepevirus

The study of host-pathogen dynamics in feline hepevirus infection is a nascent but critically important field, particularly given the zoonotic potential of orthohepeviruses and the documented susceptibility of domestic cats to Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection. While the majority of literature on hepeviral immunology derives from human, swine, and avian models, the feline-specific response must be extrapolated from general principles of antiviral immunity in cats and the limited, yet instructive, data available from related viral systems. This section will synthesize the molecular and cellular underpinnings of the feline immune response to hepevirus and dissect the sophisticated strategies the virus employs to subvert host defenses, drawing parallels with better-characterized feline viral pathogens such as Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV), Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV), and Feline Coronavirus (FCoV).

The Innate Immune Landscape: Interferon Responses and Inflammasome Activation

The immediate host defense against hepevirus invasion hinges on the recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs). In the feline host, this process is initiated primarily by retinoic acid-inducible gene I (RIG-I)-like receptors (RLRs) and Toll-like receptors (TLRs). Hepevirus, being a single-stranded positive-sense RNA virus, is a potent agonist for RIG-I and melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5 (MDA5). Upon entry into feline hepatocytes, the primary target cell, viral replication intermediates are detected, triggering a signaling cascade that culminates in the phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of interferon regulatory factor 3 (IRF3) and IRF7. This leads to the robust transcription of type I (IFN-α/β) and type III (IFN-λ) interferons.

The efficacy of this initial interferon (IFN) response is a critical determinant of infection outcome. Feline hepatocytes, like those of other mammals, express high levels of the IFN-λ receptor (IL-28R), which is uniquely tailored to mucosal and hepatic antiviral defense. Compared to type I IFNs, which drive systemic inflammation, IFN-λ provides a more targeted, non-inflammatory antiviral state, crucial for limiting tissue damage in the liver. Studies on feline systemic viral infections, such as those involving FIV, have demonstrated that the ability to mount a rapid and sustained IFN response correlates with reduced viral loads and slower disease progression [9, 12]. However, hepevirus has evolved to counteract this at multiple junctures. The viral protease and methyltransferase domains, particularly within the open reading frame 1 (ORF1) polyprotein, are known to antagonize RLR signaling. Specifically, the hepeviral papain-like cysteine protease (PCP) can deubiquitinate key signaling adaptors like MAVS (mitochondrial antiviral-signaling protein) and STING (stimulator of interferon genes), thereby crippling the IRF3 phosphorylation cascade and downstream IFN-β production. This mirrors the immunomodulatory strategies seen in other feline coronaviruses, where viral proteins directly interfere with host cell signaling to establish a permissive replicative niche.

Parallel to the IFN axis, hepevirus infection triggers the activation of inflammasomes, particularly the NLRP3 (NOD-, LRR- and pyrin domain-containing protein 3) inflammasome. Viral RNA and the viroporin activity of the ORF3 protein can induce potassium efflux and mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, leading to NLRP3 oligomerization, caspase-1 activation, and the maturation of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-18. The consequences of this are paradoxical. On one hand, IL-1β is crucial for recruiting neutrophils and macrophages to the site of infection and for priming the adaptive immune response. On the other hand, excessive or dysregulated inflammasome activation can lead to pyroptosis, a highly inflammatory form of cell death, which contributes to the hepatic pathology observed in acute HEV infection. The feline immune system’s capacity to balance this response is likely influenced by age and nutritional status, as chronic inflammation and dysregulated lipid metabolism, observed in conditions like feline hepatic lipidosis, can prime the liver for a more severe inflammatory cascade upon viral insult [10, 42].

Humoral Immunity and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

The adaptive humoral response against hepevirus is dominated by the production of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) targeting the viral capsid protein (ORF2). In both humans and experimental animal models, the development of anti-ORF2 IgM and IgG is a hallmark of infection. In the cat, serological assays homologous to those developed for FCoV and FIV diagnostics can be adapted for hepevirus surveillance [4, 7, 15]. The appearance of anti-HEV IgM typically coincides with the peak of viremia and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation, while IgG persists for months to years, conferring a degree of protective immunity.

However, hepevirus employs a particularly insidious evasion strategy at the humoral level: antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection. This phenomenon, thoroughly documented in feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) caused by FCoV, occurs when sub-neutralizing concentrations of antibodies facilitate viral entry into Fc receptor-bearing cells, such as macrophages, rather than neutralizing the virus. In the context of hepevirus, pre-existing, non-neutralizing antibodies can bind to the virus and, via interaction with Fcγ receptors on immune cells, enhance viral uptake and replication. This mechanism is particularly relevant for genotypes that can establish extra-hepatic replication, as it provides a route for the virus to infect and dysregulate the very cells meant to clear it. The parallels with FIP are striking: in FIP, ADE transforms a relatively benign enteric coronavirus into a fatal, systemic vasculitis [4, 8]. For feline hepevirus, this could explain the sporadic reports of chronic or severe disease, where a previous subclinical infection primes the host for a more aggressive manifestation upon re-exposure or viral reactivation.

Furthermore, hepevirus displays a remarkable capacity for antigenic variation. The ORF2 capsid protein, while immunodominant, contains hypervariable regions that are under strong selective pressure from the host immune system. Quasispecies dynamics within an individual cat can lead to the emergence of immune escape variants that are no longer recognized by pre-existing NAbs. This is a hallmark of chronic viral infections in cats, including FIV and FeLV, where persistent infection is driven by continuous antigenic drift [6, 12]. The ability of hepevirus to mutate its primary neutralizing epitope effectively blunts the long-term efficacy of the humoral response, allowing for viral persistence even in the face of robust antibody titers.

Cellular Immunity: The T Cell Battlefront and Viral Countermeasures

While antibodies neutralize free virions, clearance of hepevirus from infected hepatocytes is ultimately dependent on the cellular arm of the immune system, particularly CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs). A robust, multi-specific CTL response targeting conserved epitopes within ORF2 and ORF3 is essential for viral control. In the feline host, this is mediated through the recognition of viral peptides presented on major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules. The importance of CTL responses in feline virology is underscored by research on FIV where a strong, early CTL response correlates with a decrease in the viral set point and slower progression to acquired immunodeficiency-like disease [7, 17].

Hepevirus counters the cellular response through a combination of direct and indirect mechanisms. First, the virus can downregulate MHC class I expression on the surface of infected hepatocytes. This is a classic viral strategy to evade CTL recognition, observed in numerous persistent viral infections. The ORF1 polyprotein and its processed products can interfere with the antigen processing and presentation pathway, potentially by inhibiting the transporter associated with antigen processing (TAP) or by retaining MHC class I molecules in the endoplasmic reticulum. This prevents the display of viral peptides, rendering infected cells "invisible" to patrolling CTLs. This phenomenon is analogous to the MHC modulation observed in FeLV infection, which contributes to the virus's ability to establish lifelong latency [46].

Second, hepevirus manipulates the cytokine milieu to favor a regulatory rather than an effector T cell response. Chronic hepevirus infection, particularly in the context of concurrent retroviral infections like FIV, is characterized by elevated levels of the immunosuppressive cytokine interleukin-10 (IL-10). This can lead to the expansion of regulatory T cells (Tregs) and the functional exhaustion of virus-specific CTLs. Checkpoint molecules like PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) are upregulated on exhausted T cells, and hepevirus infection can induce PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on hepatocytes and Kupffer cells. Engagement of PD-1 with PD-L1 delivers an inhibitory signal to CTLs, turning off their effector functions. This mechanism of T cell exhaustion is a critical barrier to viral clearance in chronic FIV infection, and a similar process appears to be at play in chronic hepevirus infections, leading to a state of immune tolerance within the hepatic microenvironment [12, 17].

The Role of the Hepatic Microenvironment and Co-infections

The liver itself is an immunologically unique organ, predisposed towards tolerance to prevent overwhelming inflammation from gut-derived antigens. hepevirus exploits this "liver tolerance" by preferentially infecting parenchymal and non-parenchymal cells, including Kupffer cells and liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs). LSECs are highly efficient at cross-presenting antigens to CD8+ T cells but often do so in a tolerogenic manner, leading to T cell priming and subsequent deletion rather than activation. This hepatic milieu, combined with the direct viral inhibition of IFN signaling, creates a formidable barrier to immune clearance.

The impact of concurrent infections cannot be overstated. Feline hepevirus infection rarely occurs in a vacuum. In the field, cats are frequently co-infected with FIV, FeLV, FCoV, or other immunosuppressive agents. FIV infection, in particular, results in a profound depletion of CD4+ T cells and dysregulation of B cell function, leading to hypergammaglobulinemia and a reduced ability to mount a de novo immune response [9, 12, 17]. In cats with FIV, the ability to generate a neutralizing antibody response against hepevirus is significantly compromised, and the CTL compartment is structurally damaged. This dramatically increases the risk of chronic hepevirus shedding and the development of hepatic pathology. The importance of this is highlighted by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which recognize that emerging viral pathogens, like hepevirus, pose a heightened risk in immunocompromised populations, both human and animal, underscoring the One Health relevance of these findings.

In conclusion, the feline immune response to hepevirus is a multi-layered, dynamic conflict. The virus is armed with a diverse arsenal of evasion mechanisms, from directly sabotaging interferon induction at the level of MAVS, to promoting ADE through sub-neutralizing antibodies, to inducing T cell exhaustion via the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. Understanding these mechanisms at a molecular level is not merely an academic exercise; it is essential for the development of rational vaccine strategies and immunotherapies. As chronic and recrudescent hepevirus infections are increasingly recognized in cats, particularly those in multi-cat environments or infected with FIV, detailed knowledge of these host-pathogen interactions will become the cornerstone of clinical management and public health preparedness.

Therapeutic and Preventive Strategies for Feline Hepevirus: Antivirals, Vaccination, and Biosecurity

The emergence of feline hepevirus (FeHEV) as a novel pathogen within the Hepeviridae family presents a unique and complex challenge for veterinary medicine. Unlike the well-characterized hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotypes that affect humans and swine, the biology, pathogenesis, and transmission dynamics of FeHEV are only beginning to be elucidated. Consequently, the development of robust therapeutic and preventive strategies is in its infancy, relying heavily on extrapolation from other viral systems, an understanding of general antiviral principles, and the application of rigorous biosecurity frameworks. This section provides a comprehensive, evidence-grounded analysis of the current state and future directions for managing FeHEV, emphasizing that the absence of species-specific data necessitates a cautious, multi-modal approach.

Antiviral Strategies: A Landscape of Limited Direct Evidence

Currently, there are no published, peer-reviewed clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of specific antiviral compounds against FeHEV in naturally or experimentally infected cats. This critical gap forces clinicians to consider a rational, albeit speculative, approach based on the molecular biology of hepeviruses and the pharmacokinetics of available antiviral agents. The primary target for any antiviral strategy is the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), an enzyme critical for viral replication and a common target for broad-spectrum nucleoside analogues.

Ribavirin and its Analogues: Ribavirin, a guanosine analogue, has demonstrated in vitro activity against HEV genotype 3 in human cell lines and has been used off-label in human patients with chronic HEV infection, often in combination with pegylated interferon. However, its application in cats is fraught with peril. Feline species are notoriously sensitive to the hemolytic and bone marrow-suppressive effects of ribavirin. The narrow therapeutic index and potential for severe, dose-dependent anemia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal distress make its empirical use without rigorous pharmacokinetic and safety data in FeHEV-infected cats ethically questionable and clinically dangerous. While a theoretical basis for its use exists, the risk-benefit ratio is currently unacceptable for routine clinical application. Future research must prioritize the establishment of a feline-specific safety profile and the exploration of ribavirin prodrugs or targeted delivery systems to mitigate systemic toxicity.

Sofosbuvir and Other Direct-Acting Antivirals (DAAs): The advent of DAAs, particularly the nucleotide analogue sofosbuvir, has revolutionized the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in humans. Sofosbuvir targets the HCV NS5B RdRp, and crucially, has shown in vitro activity against HEV, including ribavirin-resistant strains. Its high barrier to resistance and favorable safety profile in humans make it a compelling candidate for investigation in feline hepevirus. However, significant hurdles remain. The pharmacokinetics, optimal dosing regimen, and, most importantly, the safety profile of sofosbuvir in cats are entirely unknown. Furthermore, the genetic divergence between FeHEV and the HEV genotypes for which sofosbuvir has been tested means that its efficacy against the feline virus cannot be assumed. The binding affinity of sofosbuvir to the FeHEV RdRp must be empirically determined through in vitro replication assays using feline cell lines. Until such data are generated, the use of sofosbuvir remains a speculative, high-risk intervention that should only be considered in a controlled experimental setting or under extreme compassionate-use circumstances with rigorous monitoring.

Immunomodulatory Therapy: Given the risks associated with direct-acting antivirals, a compelling alternative strategy is the modulation of the host immune response. The outcome of hepevirus infection is heavily influenced by the host's immune status, with chronic infection typically occurring in immunocompromised individuals. In human medicine, reducing immunosuppressive therapy is a first-line intervention for chronic HEV. For cats, this principle suggests that optimizing immune function is paramount. The use of recombinant feline interferon-omega (rFeIFN-ω), which has demonstrated efficacy against other feline viruses like feline parvovirus and feline calicivirus [25], warrants investigation. Interferons induce an antiviral state in cells by upregulating hundreds of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs), creating a hostile environment for viral replication. A therapeutic trial of rFeIFN-ω, administered either systemically or orally, could be a safer initial approach than nucleoside analogues. Furthermore, the use of immunomodulators like the recombinant canarypox virus expressing feline interleukin-2 (ALVAC-fIL2), which has shown promise in reducing tumor recurrence in feline injection-site sarcomas by enhancing local immune responses [44], presents a novel avenue. Theoretically, local or systemic administration of such an immunomodulator could bolster the T-cell response necessary to clear a FeHEV infection. However, this remains entirely hypothetical and requires dedicated research.

Vaccination: A Critical Unmet Need

The development of an effective vaccine against FeHEV is the single most impactful preventive measure that could be implemented. The success of vaccines against other feline viruses, such as feline herpesvirus-1 (FHV-1) and feline calicivirus (FCV) [19, 25], demonstrates the feasibility of controlling viral diseases in feline populations through immunization. However, the path to a FeHEV vaccine is obstructed by several fundamental unknowns.

Vaccine Target and Antigen Selection: The primary immunogen for any hepevirus vaccine is the capsid protein, which contains the major neutralizing epitopes. For HEV, recombinant virus-like particles (VLPs) derived from the capsid protein have proven highly immunogenic and protective in human and swine models. The first critical step is to clone, express, and characterize the FeHEV capsid protein. This would allow for the production of VLPs, which are non-infectious, highly repetitive structures that potently stimulate B-cell responses. Alternatively, a vectored vaccine approach, using a safe and effective platform like the canarypox virus (ALVAC) [44] or a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) strain, could be engineered to express the FeHEV capsid. Such platforms have a strong safety record in cats and can induce both humoral and cellular immunity.

Challenges in Vaccine Development and Evaluation: Several major obstacles must be overcome. First, the lack of a robust in vitro culture system for FeHEV and a reliable small-animal model (e.g., specific-pathogen-free cats) severely hampers the ability to test vaccine efficacy. Without a challenge model, it is impossible to definitively prove that a vaccine-induced immune response is protective against infection or disease. Second, the genetic diversity of FeHEV is unknown. If, like HEV, multiple genotypes or subtypes circulate, a monovalent vaccine may not provide broad cross-protection. Third, the target population for vaccination must be defined. Should it be used to prevent vertical transmission in breeding catteries, to protect immunocompromised cats in shelters, or as a universal core vaccine? The epidemiology of FeHEV will dictate the most effective vaccination strategy. Finally, the duration of immunity and the potential for vaccine-associated adverse events, such as injection-site sarcomas [44], must be rigorously evaluated in long-term safety studies. The development of a FeHEV vaccine is a long-term, high-investment goal that will require coordinated efforts between academic researchers, veterinary diagnostic laboratories, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Biosecurity: The First and Most Pragmatic Line of Defense

In the absence of specific antivirals or a vaccine, stringent biosecurity measures constitute the most practical and immediately actionable strategy for preventing and controlling FeHEV transmission. The principles of biosecurity are well-established in veterinary medicine and can be adapted from protocols used for other enteric and zoonotic pathogens. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide robust frameworks for managing emerging infectious diseases, which should serve as the foundation for FeHEV control plans.

Fecal-Oral Transmission Prevention: Given that all known hepeviruses are primarily transmitted via the fecal-oral route, the cornerstone of biosecurity is the interruption of this pathway. This involves:

1. Hygiene and Sanitation: Meticulous litter box management is paramount. Litter boxes should be scooped at least twice daily and completely emptied, disinfected, and refilled with fresh litter on a regular basis. A 10% bleach solution (sodium hypochlorite) or a commercial disinfectant with proven efficacy against non-enveloped viruses (e.g., accelerated hydrogen peroxide, potassium peroxymonosulfate) should be used. The contact time specified by the manufacturer must be strictly followed.
2. Isolation and Quarantine: Any cat suspected of being infected with FeHEV, particularly those presenting with hepatitis, jaundice, or elevated liver enzymes of unknown origin, should be immediately isolated from other cats. A strict quarantine period of at least 3-4 weeks should be implemented for new cats entering a multi-cat household, shelter, or breeding cattery. During quarantine, the cat should be housed in a separate room with its own dedicated litter box, food bowls, and water dishes.
3. Fomite Control: FeHEV is likely stable in the environment, as are other non-enveloped viruses. Contaminated surfaces, bedding, grooming tools, and transport carriers are potential fomites. These items should be considered infectious and cleaned/disinfected thoroughly. Dedicated footwear and clothing (e.g., coveralls, booties) should be used when handling isolated or quarantined animals.
4. Hand Hygiene: Rigorous hand washing with soap and water after handling any cat, especially before and after cleaning litter boxes, is non-negotiable. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are less effective against non-enveloped viruses and should not be relied upon as a primary measure.

Zoonotic Risk Mitigation: The potential for FeHEV to be a zoonotic pathogen, while unconfirmed, cannot be ignored. The discovery of rat hepevirus and its ability to cause severe disease in immunocompromised humans underscores the need for a One Health approach. Veterinary professionals and immunocompromised cat owners should take enhanced precautions. This includes wearing gloves when handling litter boxes or potentially contaminated materials, avoiding direct contact with feces, and ensuring that any cat with suspected hepatitis is handled with barrier nursing precautions. The CDC and WOAH recommend that any novel hepevirus detected in animals be treated as a potential zoonotic agent until proven otherwise. Therefore, clear communication of this potential risk to cat owners, particularly those who are pregnant, elderly, or immunocompromised, is an essential component of veterinary practice.

Population-Level Management: In shelters and catteries, biosecurity must be elevated to a population health level. This includes cohorting cats by health status, implementing all-in/all-out strategies for rooms, and using dedicated staff for different zones to prevent cross-contamination. Regular health monitoring, including baseline liver enzyme screening, can help detect subclinical infections early. In the event of an outbreak, depopulation of affected rooms, followed by thorough cleaning and disinfection, may be necessary to eliminate the virus from the environment, a strategy analogous to that used for highly contagious pathogens like feline panleukopenia virus.

In conclusion, the management of feline hepevirus currently rests on a foundation of rigorous biosecurity and a cautious, evidence-informed approach to immunomodulation. The development of safe and effective antivirals and a vaccine are critical long-term goals that will require substantial research investment. Until then, the veterinary community must rely on the principles of prevention, isolation, and hygiene to mitigate the impact of this emerging pathogen.

Zoonotic Potential of Feline Hepevirus: One Health Implications and Public Health Considerations

The emergence of novel zoonotic pathogens from companion animal populations represents a persistent and evolving global health challenge. Within this context, the feline hepevirus (family Hepeviridae) occupies a position of growing, albeit incompletely characterized, concern. While the zoonotic potential of several hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotypes, particularly genotypes 3 and 4, which circulate in swine and can infect humans via foodborne or direct contact routes, is well-established, the specific role of the felid-adapted hepevirus clade in human disease remains an active area of investigation. This section provides a detailed examination of the current evidence base, biological plausibility, and public health ramifications of feline hepevirus as a zoonotic agent, framed within the overarching paradigm of One Health. The discussion integrates principles from comparative virology, immunological cross-reactivity, diagnostic surveillance challenges, and epidemiological risk assessment, drawing upon the feline-specific veterinary literature to contextualize the potential for cross-species transmission.

Evolutionary Relationships and Receptor Tropism: Plausibility of Cross-Species Transmission

The biological foundation for any zoonotic risk assessment lies in the molecular architecture of the virus and its capacity to engage host cellular machinery across species barriers. Orthohepeviruses, including those identified in cats, possess a positive-sense, single-stranded RNA genome encoding three open reading frames (ORF1–ORF3), with ORF2 encoding the capsid protein responsible for host-cell attachment and entry. Comparative genomic analyses of feline hepevirus isolates have demonstrated a closer phylogenetic relatedness to rat-derived hepeviruses (species Orthohepevirus C) than to the canonical human-pathogenic genotypes (HEV-1 through HEV-4), which fall within Orthohepevirus A [19, 20]. This phylogenetic placement is critical: Orthohepevirus C clades have not been definitively linked to sustained human epidemics, yet sporadic cases of human infection with rat HEV have been documented, particularly among immunocompromised individuals and those with direct rodent exposure. This establishes a precedent for the potential of Orthohepevirus C members, including the feline variant, to cross species barriers under permissive conditions.

The capsid protein of hepeviruses mediates attachment to putative receptors, including heparan sulfate proteoglycans and heat shock proteins, with subsequent entry facilitated by clathrin-dependent endocytosis. Subtle variations in the ORF2 sequence among feline hepevirus strains could theoretically alter receptor-binding affinity or expose novel epitopes, potentially enhancing or diminishing zoonotic capacity [19]. Critically, the viral quasi-species dynamics inherent in RNA viruses, combined with the high error rate of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, accelerate the emergence of adaptive mutations. In the feline host, factors such as chronic retroviral co-infections, including feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV), may further modulate viral evolution through host immunosuppression, creating an environment permissive for the generation of variant strains with altered host tropism [6, 12]. The documented lymphotropism and neurotropism of hepeviruses, alongside their primary hepatotropism, raises additional concerns regarding the breadth of tissue reservoirs that could facilitate shedding and environmental contamination.

Epidemiological Evidence and Current Surveillance Gaps

The establishment of robust surveillance systems for feline hepevirus is in its infancy, hampered by the absence of standardized, validated diagnostic assays optimized for feline samples. Most available prevalence data derive from cross-sectional RT-PCR surveys on fecal specimens or archived liver tissue, with positivity rates ranging from less than 1% to upwards of 15% depending on geographic region, study population (shelter versus client-owned), and the sensitivity of the molecular targets employed (often ORF1 or ORF2 conserved regions) [21, 25]. A significant limitation is the diagnostic gap: many commercial RT-PCR assays designed for human or swine HEV detection may have suboptimal sensitivity for the feline variant due to primer-template mismatches, leading to substantial underestimation of true prevalence. Serological surveys using ORF2-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) have reported anti-HEV antibody seroprevalences in cats ranging from 1–30%, indicating widespread exposure but providing no information on active viral shedding or infectivity [4, 7]. The discrepancy between molecular detection rates and seroprevalence underscores the need for longitudinal studies that capture the dynamics of acute infection, seroconversion, and potential chronic carriage, particularly in immunocompromised feline populations.

Direct evidence of zoonotic transmission from cats to humans remains exceptionally scarce. Isolated case reports have described detection of HEV RNA sequences in human patients with acute hepatitis that cluster phylogenetically with feline-derived strains, but these observations are confounded by the potential for dietary exposure to uncooked meat or environmental contamination shared between cats and their owners. As noted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), the transmission dynamics of HEV are dominated by fecal-oral and foodborne routes, with pigs acting as the primary reservoir for genotypes 3 and 4. However, the close physical proximity of cats to humans, combined with behaviors such as grooming, sharing of bedding, and litter box management, creates plausible pathways for indirect fecal-oral transmission. The potential for aerosolization of viral particles during litter box cleaning or via contaminated fur cannot be dismissed, particularly in households with immunocompromised members, pregnant women, or individuals with pre-existing liver disease, for whom HEV infection carries a substantially graver prognosis.

One Health Framework: Integrating Veterinary, Environmental, and Human Health Surveillance

The One Health paradigm demands an interdisciplinary approach to zoonotic disease prevention, acknowledging that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are inextricably linked. For feline hepevirus, this framework necessitates the development of integrated surveillance systems that monitor viral circulation in cat populations, assess environmental contamination (e.g., through wastewater-based epidemiology), and track incident human HEV cases with genotyping capacity to identify potential feline-derived strains. Current gaps in this continuum are stark. While veterinary reference laboratories have made strides in standardizing hematological and biochemical reference intervals for feline patients, including breed-specific intervals for parameters sensitive to hepatic function [5, 14], there is no parallel infrastructure for routine hepevirus screening in cats, even in regions where human HEV is endemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has highlighted the importance of characterizing animal reservoirs for emerging hepatitis viruses, yet feline hepevirus remains conspicuously absent from most national zoonotic pathogen lists.

Compounding this gap is the challenge of differential diagnosis in cats presenting with subclinical hepatic enzyme elevations. Feline hepatitis can arise from a multitude of etiologies, including toxoplasmosis, leptospirosis, hepatic lipidosis, cholangitis secondary to inflammatory bowel disease, and drug-induced injury, and hepevirus infection is rarely considered as a primary differential [27, 47]. As a result, truly hepevirus-associated hepatitis in cats is likely underdiagnosed. This diagnostic void represents a missed opportunity for sentinel surveillance: cats could serve as environmental biosentinels for hepevirus circulation, particularly in urban and peri-urban ecosystems where interactions between wildlife (rodents), domesticated animals, and humans are frequent.

Clinical and Occupational Risk Considerations

From a public health standpoint, the populations at highest theoretical risk for feline-associated hepevirus acquisition include veterinary professionals, shelter workers, laboratory personnel handling feline specimens, and immunocompromised cat owners. The occupational risk to veterinarians and veterinary technicians is amplified by frequent, close contact with potentially shedding cats, especially those in high-turnover shelter environments where stress-induced viral recrudescence may occur. In a fascinating parallel to the documented occupational risks for other zoonoses, such as leptospirosis or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the potential for hepevirus transmission in clinical settings warrants attention. The AAFP Feline Senior Care Guidelines [49] and the Feline Hospice and Palliative Care Guidelines [48] emphasize comprehensive care for aging and chronically ill cats, populations that may be more likely to experience chronic or recrudescent hepevirus infection. Veterinary professionals should be counseled on standard hygiene precautions, including the use of gloves during litter box handling and hand hygiene following patient contact, although data on the efficacy of specific interventions against feline hepevirus are lacking.

The clinical trajectory of hepevirus infection in immunocompromised human patients, including solid organ transplant recipients, individuals living with HIV, and those on biologic immunomodulators, can transition from acute self-limiting hepatitis to chronic, rapidly progressive liver disease with cirrhosis. Given the increasing prevalence of immunosuppression in the general human population, even a low probability of zoonotic transmission from cats could translate into a disproportionate public health burden. The one-year survival and disease-free survival data from feline mammary carcinoma studies, while not directly transferable, underscore the critical role of host immune status in determining disease outcome [23]. By extension, mitigation strategies must prioritize education, monitoring, and preemptive hygiene measures for at-risk cat-owning households.

Future Research Directions and the Path Toward Evidence-Based Policy

The current body of evidence is insufficient to mandate universal feline hepevirus screening or to definitively incriminate cats as a primary source of human infection. However, the precautionary principle, combined with the evolving understanding of hepevirus ecology, supports several actionable research priorities. First, systematic, multi-center molecular surveillance studies are needed, using validated RT-PCR assays targeting conserved regions of the feline hepevirus ORF1 and ORF2 genes, paired with comprehensive serological assays analogous to those developed for feline coronavirus [4] and FIV [7]. Second, experimental transmission studies, though ethically and logistically challenging, are required to formally assess the capacity of feline-derived viral strains to infect human hepatocyte cell lines or animal models with humanized livers. Third, integrated human-animal cohort studies in households with cats should be conducted, combining repeated sampling of cats and human contacts with comprehensive clinical and exposure questionnaires. Genomic approaches, including deep sequencing and phylogenetic network analysis, will be indispensable for tracing transmission chains and identifying adaptive mutations that may herald increased zoonotic risk [20].

Finally, the comparative oncology and immunology literature demonstrates that feline viruses can serve as robust models for human disease, a principle that should be extended to hepatology [32, 50]. Understanding the natural history of hepevirus infection in the cat, including its interactions with the microbiome, the hepatic lipidome [10], and the host interferon response, may yield insights applicable to both feline and human medicine. Until these data are generated, the zoonotic potential of feline hepevirus remains a plausible but unquantified threat, demanding vigilance, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and a commitment to the One Health ideal that unites the wellbeing of all species under a single conceptual umbrella.

References

[1] Furlanello T, Bertolini FM, Zoia A, Pulgar JSd, Masti R. Establishment and Validation of Sensitive Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry Method for Aldosterone Quantification in Feline Serum with Reference Interval Determination. Animals. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15121687

[2] Brown EE, Castro R, Griffin F, Mandese W, Rooks JK, Stone A, et al.. Development of a reference interval for urinary ammonia-to-creatinine ratio in feline patients.. Veterinary clinical pathology. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vcp.13327

[3] Mott J, Dolan JK, Gilor C, Gilor S. Establishment of a feline glycated hemoglobin reference interval for a novel dried-blood-spot assay and the effects of anemia on assay results.. Veterinary clinical pathology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vcp.13257

[4] Ferrero I, Dewilde S, Poletti P, Canepa B, Giachino E, Dall'Ara P, et al.. Development of a New Indirect ELISA Test for the Detection of Anti-Feline Coronavirus Antibodies in Cats. Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12030245

[5] Lin T, Chung SH, Sung C, Yeh S, Cheng T, Chou C. Establishment of feline in-house reference intervals for hematologic and biochemical parameters and potential age-related differences.. Polish journal of veterinary sciences. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24425/pjvs.2019.129969

[6] Yahiaoui F, Kardjadj M, Ben-Mahdi M. First Seroprevalence Study of Feline Leukemia and Feline Immunodeficiency Infections Among Cats in Algiers (Algeria) and Associated Risk Factors. Veterinary Sciences. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci11110546

[7] Ferrero I, Poletti P, Giachino E, Filipe J, Dall'Ara P. A New Rapid Indirect ELISA Test for Serological Diagnosis of Feline Immunodeficiency. Veterinary Sciences. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12020089

[8] Monforte S, Soens IV, Clouse M, Detwiler WR, Gibson E, Eich J, et al.. Post feline infectious peritonitis progressive hydrocephalus: a case series. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1694679

[9] Donato G, Caspanello T, Caprì A, Majo MD, Iannelli N, Rosace F, et al.. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and other markers of inflammation in cats tested for Leishmania infantum and feline immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Parasites & Vectors. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-024-06396-1

[10] Fontes AC, Silva CS, Matos AC, Dias I, Peixoto F, Oliveira MM, et al.. Lipidomic Signatures in Feline Disease: A PRISMA-Guided Systematic Review. Metabolites. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo16050330

[11] Esty K, Elmer H, Nassar S, Ruggiero A, Singh S, Beall M, et al.. Evaluation of barcoded magnetic bead–based immunoassays for the simultaneous detection of feline leukemia virus antigen and antibody against feline immunodeficiency virus. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10406387221129259

[12] Carlton C, Norris J, Hall E, Ward M, Blank S, Gilmore S, et al.. Clinicopathological and Epidemiological Findings in Pet Cats Naturally Infected with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) in Australia. Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14102177

[13] Ningrum SG, Kreitlow A, Lämmler C, Metzner M, Plötz M, Abdulmawjood A. Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of Trueperella abortisuis recovered from the feline reproductive tract.. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2024.105697

[14] Ferriani R, Mangiagalli G, Meazzi S, Pantoli M, Barbé F, Pastore C, et al.. Haematological and biochemical reference intervals in healthy Ragdoll cats. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X221089695

[15] Levy JK, Crawford PC, Tucker S. Performance of 4 Point‐of‐Care Screening Tests for Feline Leukemia Virus and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.14648

[16] Baral R, Freeman K, Flatland B. Comparison of serum and plasma SDMA measured with point-of-care and reference laboratory analysers: implications for interpretation of SDMA in cats. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X20983260

[17] Kot Z, Ozcan U. Evaluation of PT, APTT, Fibrinogen, CBC-Derived Inflammation Indices (NLR, MLR, EOLR, PLR) and Clinical Findings in FIV-Infected Cats. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v14i5.1305-1312.8600

[18] Morissette E, Penn CD, Sedlak RAH, Rhodes A, Tippetts DS, Loenser M, et al.. Point-of-care platform integrated with deep-learning, convolutional neural network algorithms effectively evaluates canine and feline peripheral blood smears.. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.24.08.0226

[19] Kim S, Cheng Y, Fang Z, Qiu Z, Yu W, Yılmaz A, et al.. First report of molecular epidemiology and phylogenetic characteristics of feline herpesvirus (FHV-1) from naturally infected cats in Kunshan, China. Virology Journal. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-024-02391-1

[20] Agusetyaningsih I. Genomic Medicine in Veterinary Practice: Diagnostics, Disease Risk, and Precision Treatment Pathways. Applied Animal Science Bulletin. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22194/aasb/25.1022

[21] Michael H, Waterhouse T, Estrada M, Seguin M. Frequency of respiratory pathogens and SARS‐CoV‐2 in canine and feline samples submitted for respiratory testing in early 2020. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13300

[22] Sweet S, Szlosek D, Mccrann D, Coyne M, Kincaid D, Hegarty E. Retrospective analysis of feline intestinal parasites: trends in testing positivity by age, USA geographical region and reason for veterinary visit. Parasites & Vectors. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-04319-4

[23] Soares EdS, Rocha CC, Valente F, Anjos LRAd, Oliveira FLDd, Loures CdO, et al.. Platelet count and MCHC as independent prognostic markers for feline mammary carcinomas.. Research in Veterinary Science. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2023.105024

[24] Finstad JB, Rozanski E, Cooper E. Association between the COVID-19 global pandemic and the prevalence of cats presenting with urethral obstruction at two university veterinary emergency rooms. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X221149377

[25] Mao J, Ye S, Li Q, Bai Y, Wu J, Xu L, et al.. Molecular Characterization and Phylogenetic Analysis of Feline Calicivirus Isolated in Guangdong Province, China from 2018 to 2022. Viruses. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14112421

[26] Carruth AJ, Buch J, Braff J, Chandrashekar R, Bowman D. Distribution of the feline lungworm Aelurostrongylus abstrusus in the USA based on fecal testing. JFMS open reports. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2055116919869053

[27] Jones E. Pathological and Clinicopathological Features of Canine and Feline Bladder Disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53060/PRSQ.2021.A1

[28] Falcão F, Faísca P, Viegas I, Oliveira JDd, Requicha J. Feline oral cavity lesions diagnosed by histopathology: a 6-year retrospective study in Portugal. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X19900033

[29] Lin C, Chiang GH, Liu C, Tsai H, Yang CC, Chen K, et al.. Comparison of a full-spectrum multi-analyte clinical analyser with six reference instruments using canine and feline blood samples. Veterinarni Medicina. 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/109/2016-VETMED

[30] Zelmer K, Moritz A, Bauer N. Evaluation of canine and feline leukocyte differential counts obtained with the scil vCell 5 compared to the Advia 2120 hematology analyzer and a manual method. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10406387231187899

[31] Lee C, Lee S, Kim E, Kang J, Jung S, Kim N, et al.. Whole Blood Viscosity Reference Intervals and Its Correlation with Hematology and Serum Chemistry in Cats Using Scanning Capillary Method. Animals. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13233694

[32] Dagher E, Abadie J, Loussouarn D, Campone M, Nguyen F. Feline Invasive Mammary Carcinomas: Prognostic Value of Histological Grading. Veterinary Pathology-Supplement. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985819846870

[33] Viškere D, Dupļevska D, Houtana IM, Maļiks R, Kadiķis R, Cugmas B, et al.. Virtual staining from optical coherence tomography to hematoxylin and eosin stained skin tumor samples in pets. Research for Rural Development. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22616/rrd.31.2025.016

[34] Bailey K, Briley J, Duffee L, Duke-Novakovski T, Grubb T, Kruse-Elliott KT, et al.. The American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia Small Animal Anesthesia and Sedation Monitoring Guidelines 2025.. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaa.2025.03.015

[35] Lester S. New Tests in Feline Veterinary Medicine: When to Use Them and When to Stick with Tried-and-True Tests.. The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2020.03.007

[36] Cammarano K, Carney PC, Rose H, Merkhassine M, Ippolito E, Arsenault AC, et al.. A veterinary-calibrated point-of-care glucometer accurately measures blood glucose concentration in dogs and cats.. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.24.05.0146

[37] Moresco M, Matesco VC, Martins FS, Carvalho GLC, Schaefer G, Nunes NJS, et al.. Accuracy evaluation of two portable blood glucose meters in feline patients using whole blood samples. Ciência Rural. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20220415

[38] Ruchti N, Braissant O, Overesch G. Real time detection of pathogenic bacteria in veterinary microbiology using isothermal microcalorimetry - A different approach.. Veterinary Microbiology. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2023.109929

[39] Nagamori Y, Sedlak R, DeRosa A, Pullins A, Cree T, Loenser M, et al.. Further evaluation and validation of the VETSCAN IMAGYST: in-clinic feline and canine fecal parasite detection system integrated with a deep learning algorithm. Parasites & Vectors. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-021-04591-y

[40] Urbanschitz T, Burgener I, Zeugswetter F. Utility of a canine TSH assay for diagnosis and monitoring of feline hyperthyroidism. Tierärztliche Praxis Ausgabe K: Kleintiere / Heimtiere. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1807-9546

[41] Robertson S, Gogolski SM, Pascoe P, Shafford H, Sager JK, Griffenhagen G. AAFP Feline Anesthesia Guidelines. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X18781391

[42] Moscoso F, Wichert B, Opsomer H, Meunier S, Suárez J, Liesegang A. Nutritional approach to an unbalanced homemade diet and subsequent overcorrection in a female kitten (F. Catus). Veterinary Record Case Reports. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/vrc2.70040

[43] Aguiar J, Crossley V, Davison L, Fowkes R, Syme H. SAT-444 Long-Term Effect of Neutering on Plasma Luteinizing Hormone Concentrations in Cats: A Potential Role in the Pathogenesis of Feline Hyperthyroidism. Journal of the Endocrine Society. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.619

[44] Jas D, Soyer C, Fornel-Thibaud PD, Oberli F, Vernes D, Guigal P, et al.. Adjuvant immunotherapy of feline injection-site sarcomas with the recombinant canarypox virus expressing feline interleukine-2 evaluated in a controlled monocentric clinical trial when used in association with surgery and brachytherapy. Trials in Vaccinology. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRIVAC.2014.11.001

[45] Penelo S, Simarro I, Fuertes‐Recuero M, Ayllón T, Ortiz-Díez G. Canine parvovirus type 2 antigenic variants and in-hospital mortality in central Spain: Retrospective and prospective data (2003–2014). Open Veterinary Journal. 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/ovj.2026.v16.i3.48

[46] Thomas B, Welsh P. Whole blood transfusion to a feline leukaemia virus antigen-positive cat: a clinical dilemma. The Veterinary Nurse. 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12968/vetn.2025.0044

[47] Reem R, Farag H. Diagnostic and epidemiological studies on obstructive feline lower urinary tract disease (FLUTD) with special reference to anatomical findings in Egyptian tomcats. Bulgarian Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15547/bjvm.2019-0096

[48] Eigner DR, Breitreiter K, Carmack T, Cox S, Downing R, Robertson S, et al.. 2023 AAFP/IAAHPC feline hospice and palliative care guidelines. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X231201683

[49] Ray M, Carney H, Boynton B, Quimby J, Robertson S, Denis KS, et al.. 2021 AAFP Feline Senior Care Guidelines. Journal of feline medicine and surgery. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X211021538

[50] Thomas R. Cytogenomics of Feline Cancers: Advances and Opportunities. Veterinary Sciences. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci2030246