Evaluation of nonwoven fabrics for nasal wipe sampling for influenza A virus in swine

Nelson, Sarah W.; Hammons, Christie T.; Bliss, Nola T.; Lauterbach, Sarah E.; Zentkovich, Michele M.; Lorbach, Joshua N.; Nolting, Jacqueline M.; Bowman, Andrew S.

doi:10.1177/1040638718803999

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nasal swabs have demonstrated use in the surveillance of various porcine respiratory pathogens, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae ( 45 , 46 ), porcine circoviruses ( 47 – 50 ), parainfluenza virus ( 51 , 52 ), influenza A virus ( 24 , 25 , 53 ), Pasteurella multocida ( 54 , 55 ), Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae ( 56 ), and PRRSV ( 18 ). The use of oral swabs in surveilling swine respiratory pathogens has not gained as much traction as its more passively obtained counterpart, the oral fluid sample ( 57 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the collection of swabs is less invasive and more convenient to the sampler and pig than serum sampling, all swab samples do not offer equal levels of comfort to the pigs; for example, pigs are still restrained and experience discomfort when NS is collected ( 24 , 25 ). OS sampling is perhaps the least invasive and most comfortable of the swab sample types, as young pigs are wont to interacting with objects using their mouths ( 26 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A cross-sectional assessment of PRRSV nucleic acid detection by RT-qPCR in serum, ear-vein blood swabs, nasal swabs, and oral swabs from weaning-age pigs under field conditions

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) continues to challenge swine production in the US and most parts of the world. Effective PRRSV surveillance in swine herds can be challenging, especially because the virus can persist and sustain a very low prevalence. Although weaning-age pigs are a strategic subpopulation in the surveillance of PRRSV in breeding herds, very few sample types have been validated and characterized for surveillance of this subpopulation. The objectives of this study, therefore, were to compare PRRSV RNA detection rates in serum, oral swabs (OS), nasal swabs (NS), ear-vein blood swabs (ES), and family oral fluids (FOF) obtained from weaning-age pigs and to assess the effect of litter-level pooling on the reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) detection of PRRSV RNA.MethodsThree eligible PRRSV-positive herds in the Midwestern USA were selected for this study. 666 pigs across 55 litters were sampled for serum, NS, ES, OS, and FOF. RT-qPCR tests were done on these samples individually and on the litter-level pools of the swabs. Litter-level pools of each swab sample type were made by combining equal volumes of each swab taken from the pigs within a litter.ResultsNinety-six piglets distributed across 22 litters were positive by PRRSV RT-qPCR on serum, 80 piglets distributed across 15 litters were positive on ES, 80 piglets distributed across 17 litters were positive on OS, and 72 piglets distributed across 14 litters were positive on NS. Cohen's kappa analyses showed near-perfect agreement between all paired ES, OS, NS, and serum comparisons (). The serum RT-qPCR cycle threshold values (Ct) strongly predicted PRRSV detection in swab samples. There was a ≥ 95% probability of PRRSV detection in ES-, OS-, and NS pools when the proportion of positive swab samples was ≥ 23%, ≥ 27%, and ≥ 26%, respectively.DiscussionES, NS, and OS can be used as surveillance samples for detecting PRRSV RNA by RT-qPCR in weaning-age pigs. The minimum number of piglets to be sampled by serum, ES, OS, and NS to be 95% confident of detecting ≥ 1 infected piglet when PRRSV prevalence is ≥ 10% is 30, 36, 36, and 40, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cross-sectional assessment of PRRSV nucleic acid detection by RT-qPCR in serum, ear-vein blood swabs, nasal swabs, and oral swabs from weaning-age pigs under field conditions

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Brief Introduction to Influenza A Virus in Swine

Vincent

Anderson

Lager

2020

Methods in Molecular Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Evaluation of nonwoven fabrics for nasal wipe sampling for influenza A virus in swine

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

A cross-sectional assessment of PRRSV nucleic acid detection by RT-qPCR in serum, ear-vein blood swabs, nasal swabs, and oral swabs from weaning-age pigs under field conditions

A cross-sectional assessment of PRRSV nucleic acid detection by RT-qPCR in serum, ear-vein blood swabs, nasal swabs, and oral swabs from weaning-age pigs under field conditions

A Brief Introduction to Influenza A Virus in Swine

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About