Detection of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses in Wild Ducks from Canada: Comparison of Two Sampling Methods

Parmley, E. Jane; Soos, Catherine; Breault, André; Fortin, M.; Jenkins, Emily J.; Kibenge, Fred; King, Robin; McAloney, Keith; Pasick, John; Pryor, Sydney; Robinson, John H.; Rodrigue, Jean-Paul; Leighton, Frederick A.

doi:10.7589/0090-3558-47.2.466

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings corroborate earlier studies (7,14), where a combination of cloacal and oropharyngeal samples resulted in the highest total IAV detection (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Fecal samples, on average, contained a larger amount of viral RNA than cloacal swabs, possibly as a consequence of the fact that fecal samples contained more material from the beginning.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…The choice of cloacal and fecal samples as the basis for investigation was based on the infection patterns of low-pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) viruses, which typically infect and replicate in the lower gastrointestinal tract, including the colon, the cecum, and the bursa of Fabricius, and which are shed via feces (12). However, during the HPAI H5N1 epizootic, experimental studies showed that the virus had a higher detection rate in the respiratory tract of birds (3,13); therefore, oropharyngeal or tracheal sampling was included in several screening programs (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Most studies reported that LPAI detection was higher in cloacal than in oropharyngeal samples and that combined oropharyngeal and cloacal sampling increased overall detection rates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Does Sampling Methodology Influence Molecular Detection and Isolation Success in Influenza A Virus Field Studies?

Latorre‐Margalef

Avril

Tolf

et al. 2016

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild waterfowl are important reservoir hosts for influenza A virus (IAV) and a potential source of spillover infections in other hosts, including poultry and swine. The emergence of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses, such as H5N1 and H5N8, and subsequent spread along migratory flyways prompted the initiation of several programs in Europe, North America, and Africa to monitor circulation of HPAI and low-pathogenicity precursor viruses (low-pathogenicity avian influenza [LPAI] viruses). Given the costs of maintaining such programs, it is essential to establish best practice for field methodologies to provide robust data for epidemiological interpretation. Here, we use long-term surveillance data from a single site to evaluate the influence of a number of parameters on virus detection and isolation of LPAI viruses. A total of 26,586 samples (oropharyngeal, fecal, and cloacal) collected from wild mallards were screened by real-time PCR, and positive samples were subjected to isolation in embryonated chicken eggs. The LPAI virus detection rate was influenced by the sample type: cloacal/fecal samples showed a consistently higher detection rate and lower cycle threshold (C t ) value than oropharyngeal samples. Molecular detection was more sensitive than isolation, and virus isolation success was proportional to the number of RNA copies in the sample. Interestingly, for a given C t value, the isolation success was lower in samples from adult birds than in those from juveniles. Comparing the results of specific real-time reverse transcriptase (RRT)-PCRs and of isolation, it was clear that coinfections were common in the investigated birds. The effects of sample type and detection methods warrant some caution in interpretation of the surveillance data.T he number of studies focusing on the role of wild birds as reservoir species for influenza A virus (IAV) has increased dramatically over the last 10 years (1). This increase was to a large extent caused by the emergence of a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus of the H5N1 subtype in Southeast Asia in 1999 (2). This particular virus causes high mortality in domestic poultry and can be transmitted among wild birds, particularly waterfowl. It rapidly reached a large spatial distribution in Asia, Europe, and Africa in 2006 and has remained endemic in parts of this range. Several surveillance programs were initiated in response to the H5N1 spread (3), but standardized methods were not implemented everywhere. In addition, the emergence in Southeast Asia of other IAV subtypes in poultry and in humans, like H5N1 and H7N9, and the recent spread of H5N8 into Europe and North America (4, 5), point to the need for efficient and reliable screening methods (6). As IAV is an RNA virus and is sensitive to changes in the physical environment, such as temperature, pH, and salinity (7, 8), sampling and screening strategies need to be evaluated in order to provide best practice.Traditionally, IAV surveillance has been based on cloacal swabs or fresh droppings (here c...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Does Sampling Methodology Influence Molecular Detection and Isolation Success in Influenza A Virus Field Studies?

Latorre‐Margalef

Avril

Tolf

et al. 2016

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparing our swab sample types, only 0.5% of cloacal samples were positive for the M gene, much lower than the 6.8% for OP swab samples. Using only cloacal swab samples for processing may lower the chances of detecting a current infection or exposure and may lead to underestimates of the prevalence of either HPAI or LPAI viruses (Parmley et al, 2011). We suggest collecting and processing both types of swab samples for detection of AIVs and, if possible, more comprehensive evaluation of positive samples for specific avian influenza virus strains.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Influenza Viruses in Wild Land Birds in Northern Vietnam

Thinh

Gilbert

Bunpapong

et al. 2012

Journal of Wildlife Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The respiratory tract of poultry and waterfowl is well recognized as a site of replication of LP and HP subtypes of AI virus in addition to the intestinal tract. 3,21,30,[39][40][41] As opposed to the H13N6 strain, however, the H2N3 strain also replicated well in the intestinal tract and cloacal bursa of infected birds. The preferred replication sites of the H13N6 subtype in gulls are not well defined.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…27 Nonetheless, the isolation of LPAI virus from oropharyngeal swabs of naturally infected wild waterfowl suggests the potential for primary infection of the respiratory tract in these birds. 10,30 This, in combination with potential depression of the immune system associated with the stress of migration, 45 could manifest itself as a pneumonia of clinical significance. Stress and, particularly, secondary bacterial infections are recognized as important factors contributing to the exacerbation of clinical signs and lesions associated with natural infection by LPAI virus in poultry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Replication of 2 Subtypes of Low-Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Virus of Duck and Gull Origins in Experimentally Infected Mallard Ducks

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many subtypes of low-pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) virus circulate in wild bird reservoirs, but their prevalence may vary among species. We aimed to compare by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, virus isolation, histology, and immunohistochemistry the distribution and pathogenicity of 2 such subtypes of markedly different origins in Mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos): H2N3 isolated from a Mallard duck and H13N6 isolated from a Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis). Following intratracheal and intraesophageal inoculation, neither virus caused detectable clinical signs, although H2N3 virus infection was associated with a significantly decreased body weight gain during the period of virus shedding. Both viruses replicated in the lungs and air sacs until approximately day 3 after inoculation and were associated with a locally extensive interstitial, exudative, and proliferative pneumonia. Subtype H2N3, but not subtype H13N6, went on to infect the epithelia of the intestinal mucosa and cloacal bursa, where it replicated without causing lesions until approximately day 5 after inoculation. Larger quantities of subtype H2N3 virus were detected in cloacal swabs than in pharyngeal swabs. The possible clinical significance of LPAI virus-associated pulmonary lesions and intestinal tract infection in ducks deserves further evaluation.

show abstract

Detection of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses in Wild Ducks from Canada: Comparison of Two Sampling Methods

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

How Does Sampling Methodology Influence Molecular Detection and Isolation Success in Influenza A Virus Field Studies?

How Does Sampling Methodology Influence Molecular Detection and Isolation Success in Influenza A Virus Field Studies?

Avian Influenza Viruses in Wild Land Birds in Northern Vietnam

Replication of 2 Subtypes of Low-Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Virus of Duck and Gull Origins in Experimentally Infected Mallard Ducks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About