Equine herpesvirus type 1 (EHV-1) can cause respiratory disease, abortion, respiratory illness and death in neonatal foals and neurological disease in horses (Allen et al. 2004; Lunn et al. 2009). Primary infection of young foals typically results in establishment of a latent carrier state and the potential for viral reactivation during the life of the infected individual. Reactivation leads to the production of infectious virus that can be shed into the nasopharynx for a limited period of time and also result in a cell-associated viraemia, which may give rise to clinical disease and abortion in mares. Over the past decade, there has been an unexpected increase in incidence of equine herpesvirus neurological disease (equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy [EHM]) (Perkins et al. 2009; Vissani et al. 2009; Fritsche and Borchers 2010; Pronost et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010). Recent studies suggest that EHM is associated with a single nucleotide polymorphism at position 2254 in the EHV-1 DNA polymerase gene (encoded by open reading frame 30 [ORF30]) (Nugent et al. 2006; Goodman et al. 2007; Perkins et al. 2009; van de Walle et al. 2009). Based on these findings, EHV-1 strains possessing guanine (G2254) at this site are considered to have neuropathogenic potential, whereas those strains with adenine (A2254) are thought to be non-neuropathogenic and usually but not invariably associated with abortion and respiratory disease in horses. The nonsynonymous A to G substitution at nucleotide position 2254 in ORF30 results in replacement of asparagine (N) with a negatively charged aspartic acid (D) residue at amino acid position 752 (N752→D752) in the viral DNA polymerase enzyme. EHV-1 strains of the G2254 genotype have been shown to replicate more efficiently in the horse and produce significantly higher viral loads (Allen and Breathnach 2006; Allen 2008). It is believed that this increased replicative capacity enhances the ability of the virus to infect capillary endothelial cells, leading to interference with the blood supply to the central nervous system and the development of neurological signs. The evidence supporting this association between the G2254 substitution and EHM is derived from nucleotide sequence analysis of a relatively small region of ORF30 (251 nucleotides [10% of the DNA polymerase gene]) from 131 field isolates of EHV-1 involving both neurological and non-neurological clinical episodes (Nugent et al. 2006) and subsequent nucleotide substitution experiments conducted using infectious EHV-1 molecular clones (Goodman et al. 2007; van de Walle et al. 2009; Ma et al. 2010). Furthermore, the recently observed increased incidence of EHM correlates with the higher prevalence of viruses with a G2254 genotype currently being isolated in diagnostic laboratories in Europe and the USA (Perkins et al. 2009; Pronost et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010). Recently, Perkins et al. (2009) performed statistical analysis of ORF30 from a large number of EHV-1 isolates (n = 176) and demonstrated that the odds of neurological disease being associated with the ORF30 G2254 genotype are 162 times greater than those with the A2254 genotype. A comprehensive analysis of a large panel of archived EHV-1 isolates collected from sporadic cases of equine abortion between 1951 and 2006 in Kentucky using a real-time Taq-Man allelic discrimination PCR, revealed that viruses with the G2254 neuropathogenic genotype existed at least as far back as the 1950s (Smith et al. 2010). Furthermore, such isolates increased in prevalence from 3.3% in the 1960s to 14.4% in the 1990s, with indications of an even higher incidence from 2000 onwards. The studies outlined above certainly support an association between EHM and the G2254 genotype. However, there is an increasing body of very compelling evidence to indicate that this nucleotide substitution is not the only determinant of neurological disease. In the Perkins et al. (2009) survey, 24% of isolates from horses with neurological disease possessed the A2254 and not the G2254 genotype. This finding is supported by our own investigations comparing results from the real-time allelic discrimination assay with detailed case histories provided by attending veterinarians (U.B.R. Balasuriya, unpublished data; Pronost et al. 2010). We identified a number of A2254 genotype EHV-1 isolates from cases of neurological disease, as well as G2254 genotype isolates from numerous horses with no evidence of neurological involvement. In addition, we have identified viruses with nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions in ORF30 besides A→G2254, from horses without signs of neurological disease, which presents the possibility that these may have an attenuating effect on the viral phenotype (Smith et al. 2010). Conversely, if mutations exist within ORF30 that attenuate the phenotype, there may be many other substitutions not associated with position 2254 and outside the small region included in the study of Nugent et al. (2006) with the capability of enhancing viral replication rates in vivo. This could explain, for example, why some viruses with the A2254 genotype have been isolated from cases of neurological disease. The neuropathogenic potential of such strains to this point has not been fully investigated. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that