Canine Olfaction as a Disease Detection Technology: A Systematic Review

Olfactory immunology: the missing piece in airway and CNS defence

The olfactory mucosa is a component of the nasal airway that mediates the sense of smell. Recent studies point to an important role for the olfactory mucosa as a barrier to both respiratory pathogens and to neuroinvasive pathogens that hijack the olfactory nerve and invade the CNS. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that the olfactory mucosa is an integral part of a heterogeneous nasal mucosal barrier critical to upper airway immunity. However, our insufficient knowledge of olfactory mucosal immunity hinders attempts to protect this tissue from infection and other diseases. This Review summarizes the state of olfactory immunology by highlighting the unique immunologically relevant anatomy of the olfactory mucosa, describing what is known of olfactory immune cells, and considering the impact of common infectious diseases and inflammatory disorders at this site. We will offer our perspective on the future of the field and the many unresolved questions pertaining to olfactory immunity.

Success in the Natural Detection Task is influenced by only a few factors generally believed to affect dogs' olfactory performance

Research into dogs' olfactory ability is growing rapidly. However, generalising based on scientific results is challenging, because research has been typically conducted on a few specially trained subjects of a few breeds tested in different environmental conditions. We investigated the effects of temperature and humidity (outdoors), age, test location, sex, neutering status, and repeated testing (outdoors and indoors) on the olfactory performance of untrained family dogs (N = 411) of various breeds. We employed the Natural Detection Task with three difficulty levels, from which we derived two performance metrics: Top Level and Success Score. Temperature (0-25 °C) and humidity (18-90%) did not affect olfactory performance. Young adult dogs surpassed other age groups in reaching the Top Level. Sex and neutering status showed no discernible influence on Top Level and Success Score. Dogs performed better in both metrics when tested indoors compared to outdoors. In the test-retest procedure no significant learning effect was observed. We confirmed on untrained companion dogs that olfactory performance declines with age and rejected some factors that have been previously hypothesised to significantly affect dogs' olfactory success. The influence of the testing environment was notable, emphasising the need to consider various factors in understanding dogs' olfactory capabilities.

Dogs' ability to detect an inflammatory immune response in cattle via olfaction

Introduction

Canine olfaction is a potential means for detection of respiratory disease in beef cattle. In a prior study, two dogs were trained to discriminate between nasal swabs from healthy cattle and cattle that developed Bovine Respiratory Disease. Dogs had some ability to identify samples from BRD-affected cattle, but results were ambiguous. The purpose of this study was to evaluate more dogs using better-controlled training and testing procedures.

Methods

Nasal and saliva swabs were collected from 96 cattle before and after administering a vaccine to induce an inflammatory immune response. Samples were stored at -80°C for up to 11 months before use, and samples from animals with an elevated body temperature at baseline were omitted. An automated olfactometer apparatus was constructed to improve blinding procedures and reduce opportunities for odor contamination. Four dogs were trained to distinguish between swabs from healthy and sickness-model cattle, including the two dogs from the previous study ("Runnels" and "Cheaps") and two inexperienced dogs ("Molokai" and "Amy"). During a seven-month training period, dogs were exposed to samples from 28 animals. Dogs were tested on 59 sets of unfamiliar samples.

Results

Performance varied among dogs (χ2 = 10.48, p = 0.02). Molokai's performance was above chance (0.73 ± 0.06, p = 0.0006), while Amy (0.44 ± 0.06, p = 0.43), Cheaps (0.53 ± 0.07, p = 0.79), and Runnels (0.56 ± 0.06, p = 0.43) did not respond correctly at a rate different from chance. Accuracy did not differ between nasal swabs (0.63 ± 0.08) and saliva swabs (0.53 ± 0.08, χ2 = 0.81, p = 0.37).

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that canine olfaction may be an effective means of detecting illness in beef cattle. However, individual dogs' aptitude for this detection task varies.

The neglected potential of invertebrates in detecting disease via olfaction

Agents that cause disease alter the cell metabolism of their hosts. Cells with an altered metabolism produce particular profiles of biomolecules, which are different from those of healthy cells. Such differences may be detected by olfaction. Historically, physicians used olfactory cues to diagnose sickness by smelling the breath or the urine of patients. However, other species have been shown to possess excellent olfactory abilities. Dogs, for instance, have been frequently used as biodetectors of human diseases, including cancer, viral and bacterial infections. Other mammalian species, such as rats, have been trained to perform similar tasks, but their disease detection abilities remain poorly explored. Here, we focus on the overlooked potential of invertebrate species and we review the current literature on olfactory detection of diseases by these animals. We discuss the possible advantages of exploring further the abilities of invertebrates as detection tools for human disease.

Progress in the Development of Detection Strategies Based on Olfactory and Gustatory Biomimetic Biosensors

The biomimetic olfactory and gustatory biosensing devices have broad applications in many fields, such as industry, security, and biomedicine. The development of these biosensors was inspired by the organization of biological olfactory and gustatory systems. In this review, we summarized the most recent advances in the development of detection strategies for chemical sensing based on olfactory and gustatory biomimetic biosensors. First, sensing mechanisms and principles of olfaction and gustation are briefly introduced. Then, different biomimetic sensing detection strategies are outlined based on different sensing devices functionalized with various molecular and cellular components originating from natural olfactory and gustatory systems. Thereafter, various biomimetic olfactory and gustatory biosensors are introduced in detail by classifying and summarizing the detection strategies based on different sensing devices. Finally, the future directions and challenges of biomimetic biosensing development are proposed and discussed.

Using Canine Olfaction to Detect Bovine Respiratory Disease: A Pilot Study

Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in feedlot cattle and is a major welfare and economic concern. Identification of BRD-affected cattle using clinical illness scores is problematic, and speed and cost constraints limit the feasibility of many diagnostic approaches. Dogs can rapidly identify humans and animals affected by a variety of diseases based on scent. Canines' olfactory systems can distinguish between patterns of volatile organic compounds produced by diseased and healthy tissue. In this pilot study, two dogs (“Runnels” and “Cheaps”) were trained for 7 months to discriminate between nasal swabs from cattle that developed signs of BRD within 20 days of feedlot arrival and swabs from cattle that did not develop BRD signs within 3 months at the feedlot. Nasal swabs were collected during cattle processing upon arrival to the feedlot and were stored at −80°C. Dogs were presented with sets of one positive and two negative samples and were trained using positive reinforcement to hold their noses over the positive sample. The dogs performed moderately well in the final stage of training, with accuracy for Runnels of 0.817 and Cheaps of 0.647, both greater than the 0.333 expected by chance. During a double-blind detection test, dogs evaluated 123 unique and unfamiliar samples that were presented as 41 sets (3 samples per set), with both the dog handler and data recorder blinded to the positive sample location. Each dog was tested twice on each set of samples. Detection test accuracy was slightly better than chance for Cheaps at 0.451 (95% CI: 0.344–0.559) and was no better than chance for Runnels at 0.390 (95% CI: 0.285–0.496. Overall accuracy was 0.421 (95% CI: 0.345–0.496). When dogs' consensus response on each sample set was considered, accuracy was 0.537 (95% CI: 0.384–0.689). Detection accuracy also varied by sample lot. While dogs showed some ability to discriminate between BRD-affected and healthy cattle using nasal swabs, the complexity of this task suggests that more testing is needed before determining whether dogs could be effective as a screening method for BRD.