Article

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in serum and oral fluid samples from individual boars: Will oral fluid replace serum for PRRSV surveillance?

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Virus Research (Impact Factor: 2.83). 12/2010; 154(1-2):170-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2010.07.025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine whether oral fluid samples could be used to monitor individually-housed adult boars for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) infection. In 3 trials, 24 boars were intramuscularly (IM) inoculated with a modified-live PRRSV (MLV) vaccine (Trial 1), a Type 1 PRRSV isolate (Trial 2), or a Type 2 isolate (Trial 3). Oral fluid samples were collected daily and serum samples were collected twice weekly. Following the completion of the study, samples were randomized and blind-tested for PRRSV by real-time quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). PRRSV was detected in oral fluids at DPI 1 and all oral fluid specimens were PRRSV qRT-PCR positive at DPI 4. Although PRRSV was detected in both serum and oral fluid specimens through DPI 21, a comparison of matched samples from individual boars showed that oral fluid was equal to serum for the detection of PRRSV at DPI 7 and more likely to be positive than serum on DPI 14 and 21. Overall, oral fluid was superior to serum for the detection of PRRSV using PCR over the 21-day observation period in this study. The results of this experiment suggest that individually-penned oral fluid sampling could be an efficient, cost-effective approach to PRRSV surveillance in boar studs and other swine populations.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Chris W Olsen, May 29, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
175 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The probability of detecting influenza A virus (IAV) by virus isolation (VI), point-of-care (POC) antigen detection, and real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) was estimated for pen-based oral fluid (OF) and individual pig nasal swab (NS) specimens. Piglets (n=82) were isolated for 30 days and confirmed negative for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, and IAV infections. A subset (n=28) was vaccinated on day post inoculation (DPI) -42 and -21 with a commercial multivalent vaccine. On DPI 0, pigs were intratracheally inoculated with contemporary isolates of H1N1 (n=35) or H3N2 (n=35) or served as negative controls (n=12). OF (n=370) was collected DPI 0-16 and NS (n=924) DPI 0-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16. The association between IAV detection and variables of interest (specimen, virus subtype, assay, vaccination status, and DPI) was analyzed by mixed-effect repeated measures logistic regression and the results used to calculate the probability (pˆ) of detecting IAV in OF and NS over DPI by assay. Vaccination (p-value<0.0001), DPI (p-value<0.0001), and specimen-assay interaction (p-value<0.0001) were significant to IAV detection, but virus subtype was not (p-value=0.89). Vaccination and/or increasing DPI reduced pˆ for all assays. VI was more successful using NS than OF, but both VI and POC were generally unsuccessful after DPI 6. Overall, rRT-PCR on OF specimens provided the highest pˆ for the most DPIs, yet significantly different results were observed between the two laboratories independently performing rRT-PCR testing.
    Veterinary Microbiology 07/2013; 166(3-4). DOI:10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.06.029 · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the effect of extraction-amplification methods, storage temperature and saliva stabilisers on detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RNA by quantitative reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) in porcine oral fluid. The diagnostic performance of different extraction-amplification methods was examined using a dilution series of oral fluid spiked with PRRSV. To determine RNA stability, porcine oral fluid, with or without commercially available saliva stabilisers, was spiked with PRRSV, stored at 4°C or room temperature and tested for the presence of PRRSV RNA by qRT-PCR. PRRSV RNA could be detected in oral fluid using all extraction-amplification combinations, but the limit of detection varied amongst different combinations. Storage temperature and saliva stabilisers had an effect on the stability of PRRSV RNA, which could only be detected for 7days when PRRSV spiked oral fluid was kept at 4°C or stabilised at room temperature with a commercial mRNA stabiliser.
    The Veterinary Journal 03/2013; 197(2). DOI:10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.02.001 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus (PRRSV) impairs local pulmonary immune responses by damaging the mucociliary transport system, impairing the function of porcine alveolar macrophages andinducing apoptosis of immune cells. An imbalance between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, including tumour necrosis factor-α and interleukin-10, in PRRS may impair the immune response of the lung. Pulmonary macrophage subpopulations have a range of susceptibilities to different PRRSV strains and different capacities to express cytokines. Infection with PRRSV decreases the bactericidal activity of macrophages, which increases susceptibility to secondary bacterial infections. PRRSV infection is associated with an increase in concentrations of haptoglobin, which may interact with the virus receptor (CD163) and induce the synthesis of anti-inflammatory mediators. The balance between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines modulates the expression of CD163, which may affect the pathogenicity and replication of the virus in different tissues. With the emergence of highly pathogenic PRRSV, there is a need for more information on the immunopathogenesis of different strains of PRRS, particularly to develop more effective vaccines.
    The Veterinary Journal 12/2012; 195(2). DOI:10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.11.012 · 2.17 Impact Factor