Effect of pooling udder skin wipes on the detection of influenza A virus in preweaning pigs

Lara, Anne C. de; Garrido-Mantilla, Jorge; Lopez-Moreno, Gustavo; Yang, Ming‐Chien; Barcellos, David Emílio Santos Neves de; Torremorell, Montserrat

doi:10.1177/10406387211039462

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization

Stadler,

Zwickl,

Gumbert

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Monitoring of infectious diseases on swine farms requires a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the test system. Moreover, particularly in cases of swine Influenza A virus (swIAV) it is desirable to include characterization of the virus as precisely as possible. This is indispensable for strategies concerning prophylaxis of swIAV and furthermore, to meet the requirements of a purposeful monitoring of newly emerging IAV strains in terms of vaccine design and public health. Within the present cross-sectional study, we compared the diagnostic value of group samples (wipes of surfaces with direct contact to mouth/nose, dust wipes, udder skin wipes, oral fluids) to individual samples (nasal swabs, tracheobronchial swabs) for both swIAV identification and characterization. Sampling included different stages of pig production on 25 sow farms with attached nursery considered as enzootically infected with swIAV. Firstly, samples were analyzed for IAV genome and subsequently samples with Ct-values < 32 were subtyped by multiplex RT-qPCR. Results Nasal swabs of suckling piglets and nursery pigs resulted in a higher odds to detect swIAV (p < 0.001) and to identify swIAV subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05) compared to nasal swabs of sows. In suckling piglets, nasal swabs and sow udder skin wipes were significantly more often swIAV positive compared to contact wipes from the farrowing unit (p = 0.007; p = 0.036). In the nursery, group sampling specimens yielded higher rates of swIAV detection compared to individual samples. However, in general nasal swabs were more likely to have Ct-value < 32 and thus, to be suitable for subtyping by RT-qPCR compared to dust wipes, contact wipes, udder skin wipes and tracheobronchial swabs (p < 0.05). Despite the high detection rate of swIAV in dust wipes, those specimens had the lowest odds of identifying subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05). Interestingly, different subtypes were found in different age groups as well as in different specimens in the same holding. Conclusion Although population-based specimens are highly effective for swIAV monitoring, nasal swabs are still the preferable sampling material for the surveillance of on-farm circulating strains due to significantly higher virus loads. Remarkably, sampling strategies should incorporate suckling piglets and different age groups within the nursery to cover all on-farm circulating strains.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization

Stadler,

Zwickl,

Gumbert

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These differences might be attributed to the divergent subtyping methods, stabilizing media, epidemiological situations on farms or the investigation of udder skin wipes in pools as conducted in our examinations. However according to de Lara et al [ 47 ] pooling of up to 3 udder skin wipes for virus isolation does not result in a decrease of sensitivity. Of note, pooling may yield false reassortment results during further virus isolation and thus it is preferable to use individual samples for isolation purposes and sequencing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization

Stadler,

Zwickl,

Gumbert

et al. 2024

Porc Health Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Monitoring of infectious diseases on swine farms requires a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the test system. Moreover, particularly in cases of swine influenza A virus (swIAV) it is desirable to include characterization of the virus as precisely as possible. This is indispensable for strategies concerning prophylaxis of swIAV and furthermore, to meet the requirements of a purposeful monitoring of newly emerging swIAV strains in terms of vaccine design and public health. Within the present cross-sectional study, we compared the diagnostic value of group samples (wipes of surfaces with direct contact to mouth/nose, dust wipes, udder skin wipes, oral fluids) to individual samples (nasal swabs, tracheobronchial swabs) for both swIAV identification and characterization. Sampling included different stages of pig production on 25 sow farms with attached nursery considered as enzootically infected with swIAV. Firstly, samples were analyzed for IAV genome and subsequently samples with Ct-values < 32 were subtyped by multiplex RT-qPCR. Results Nasal swabs of suckling piglets and nursery pigs resulted in a higher odds to detect swIAV (p < 0.001) and to identify swIAV subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05) compared to nasal swabs of sows. In suckling piglets, significant higher rates of swIAV detection could be observed for nasal swabs (p = 0.007) and sow udder skin wipes (p = 0.036) compared to contact wipes. In the nursery, group sampling specimens were significantly more often swIAV positive compared to individual samples (p < 0.01), with exception of the comparison between contact wipes and nasal swabs (p = 0.181). However, in general nasal swabs were more likely to have Ct-value < 32 and thus, to be suitable for subtyping by RT-qPCR compared to dust wipes, contact wipes, udder skin wipes and tracheobronchial swabs (p < 0.05). Interestingly, different subtypes were found in different age groups as well as in different specimens in the same holding. Conclusion Although population-based specimens are highly effective for swIAV monitoring, nasal swabs are still the preferable sampling material for the surveillance of on-farm circulating strains due to significantly higher virus loads. Remarkably, sampling strategies should incorporate suckling piglets and different age groups within the nursery to cover as many as possible of the on-farm circulating strains.

show abstract

Overview of non-invasive sampling methods used in intensive swine farming

Glisic,

Veljovic,

Milovanovic

et al. 2023

VET GLASNIK

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring the health of swine herds is essential to ensure good manufacturing practices. Traditionally, active and passive surveillance on farms involved invasive sampling methods, where specific animals were selected, restrained, and sampled. However, with the increasing intensity of swine production, alternative methods for effective herd surveillance became necessary. Non-invasive sampling provides a convenient and cost-effective approach to monitor the entire herd without compromising animal welfare, while still obtaining suitable samples for testing. Oral fluids have been widely used in both human and livestock health surveillance for various viral pathogens, including significant diseases. Nasal wipes (NW) utilize different cloth materials soaked in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) or tissue culture medium with antibiotics and antimycotics to sample for swine influenza virus (SIV). Udder skin wipes (USW) offer an alternative method to assess the health status of piglets in a litter. During routine procedures such as tail docking and castration, a mixture of blood and serum can be collected, known as process fluids (PF), which has proven successful in monitoring herds for the presence of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). Furthermore, air sampling has emerged as a novel technique to detect pathogens in various farming systems and animal species. This method offers the advantage of obtaining diagnostic samples without direct animal contact. By employing these non-invasive sampling methods, swine producers can implement effective surveillance strategies while maintaining animal welfare standards and obtaining reliable diagnostic information.

show abstract

Effect of pooling udder skin wipes on the detection of influenza A virus in preweaning pigs

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization

Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization

Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization

Overview of non-invasive sampling methods used in intensive swine farming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About