Canine kidney cell line for isolation of respiratory viruses

Meguro, H; Bryant, James; Torrence, Anne E; Wright, Peter F.

doi:10.1128/jcm.9.2.175-179.1979

Cited by 110 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Samples with cycle threshold (Ct) values lower than 35 were considered positive and those which Ct values equal or higher than 35 were considered negative. In order to confirm virus viability, a subset of 47 rRT-PCR positive samples were further tested for virus isolation using Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells [ 23 ]. Sample selection ensured that all activities and sample types were included with preference to those with lowest Ct values to maximize the likelihood of viral isolation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farm management practices associated with influenza A virus contamination of people working in Midwestern United States swine farms

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indirect transmission of influenza A virus (IAV) contributes to virus spread in pigs. To identify farm management activities with the ability to contaminate farmworkers’ hands and clothing that then could be a source of virus spread to other pigs, we conducted a within-farm, prospective IAV surveillance study. Hands and clothes from farmworkers performing the activities of piglet processing, vaccination, or weaning were sampled before and after the activities were performed. Samples were tested by IAV rRT-PCR and virus viability was assessed by cell culture. A multivariate generalized linear model was used to detect associations of the activities with IAV contamination. Of the samples collected for IAV rRT-PCR testing, there were 16% (12/76) collected immediately after processing, 96% (45/48) collected after vaccination, and 94% (29/31) collected after weaning that tested positive. Samples collected immediately after vaccination and weaning, i.e., activities that took place during the peri-weaning period when pigs were about 3 weeks of age, had almost 6 times higher risk of IAV detection and had more samples IAV positive (p-value < 0.0001) than samples collected after processing, i.e., an activity that took place in the first few days of life. Both, hands and clothes had similar contamination rates (46% and 55% respectively, p-value = 0.42) and viable virus was isolated from both. Our results indicate that activities that involve the handling of infected piglets close to weaning age represent a significant risk for IAV dissemination due to the high level of IAV contamination found in farmworkers’ hands and coveralls involved in the activities. Biosecurity protocols that include hand sanitation and changing clothing after performing activities with a high-risk of influenza contamination should be recommended to farmworkers to control and limit the mechanical spread of IAV between pigs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farm management practices associated with influenza A virus contamination of people working in Midwestern United States swine farms

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…RNA from swine samples were tested in pools of 3 by farm and collection day using rRT‐PCR that targets the conserved IAV matrix gene using previously described procedures (Slomka et al, 2010; Nirmala et al, 2021). Samples which tested positive by rRT‐PCR (ct <37) were selected for virus isolation using Madin–Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells as described previously (Meguro et al, 1979).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence of influenza A infection and risk of transmission between pigs and farmworkers

Lopez-Moreno

Davies

Yang

et al. 2022

Zoonoses and Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interspecies transmission of influenza A virus (IAV) between pigs and people represents a threat to both animal and public health. To better understand the risks of influenza transmission at the human–animal interface, we evaluated 1) the rate of IAV detection in swine farmworkers before and after work during two human influenza seasons, 2) assessed risk factors associated with IAV detection in farmworkers and 3) characterized the genetic sequences of IAV detected in both workers and pigs. Of 58 workers providing nasal passage samples during 8‐week periods during the 2017/18 and 2018/19 influenza seasons, 33 (57%) tested positive by rRT‐PCR at least once. Sixteen (27%) workers tested positive before work and 24 (41%) after work. At the sample level, 58 of 1,785 nasal swabs (3.2%) tested rRT‐PCR positive, of which 20 of 898 (2.2%) were collected prior to work and 38 of 887 (4.3%) after work. Although farmworkers were more likely to test positive at the end of the working day (OR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.14–3.41), there were no influenza‐like illness (ILI) symptoms, or other risk indicators, associated with IAV detection before or after reporting to work. Direct whole‐genome sequencing from samples obtained from worker nasal passages indicated evidence of infection of a worker with pandemic 2009 H1N1 of human‐origin IAV (H1‐pdm 1A 3.3.2) when reporting to work, and exposure of several workers to a swine‐origin IAV (H1‐alpha 1A 1.1) circulating in the pigs on the farm where they were employed. Our study provides evidence of 1) risk of IAV transmission between pigs and people, 2) pandemic H1N1 IAV infected workers reporting to work and 3) workers exposed to swine harbouring swine‐origin IAV in their nasal passages temporarily. Overall, our results emphasize the need to implement surveillance and transmission preventive protocols at the pig/human interface.

show abstract

“…Laboratory diagnosis methods are different in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Today we have quick tests for diagnosis at the patient's bedside (often useful to correctly orient the treatment), isolation in embryonated chicken eggs or in cell cultures (MDCK) (Meguro, 1979), identification with the haemoagglutination inhibition test and through the polymerase amplification reaction (Polymerase Chain Reaction; PCR) (Atmar, 1996) and isolate genotyping. These last two methods allow us to focus on molecular epidemiology results, which are very useful for making forecasts.…”

Section: Virological Surveillancementioning

confidence: 99%