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

Kittawornrat, Apisit; Prickett, John; Chittick, Wayne; Wang, Chong; Engle, Mark; Johnson, J. K.; Patnayak, Devi P.; Schwartz, Trevor; Whitney, Daniel E.; Olsen, Chris; Schwartz, Kent; Zimmerman, Jeffrey J.

doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2010.07.025

Cited by 98 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this study only included few collections and all from acutely infected naïve pigs at the time of infection. Furthermore, other studies focused on detection of PRRSV in experimentally infected pigs and in individual boars by comparing PCR results from oral fluid and blood samples showed similar results to the ones reported here where the agreement between pen‐based oral fluids and serum PRRSV status was 77% in finishing barns, and 100% in paired samples from individual boars at 7 days post‐infection with PRRSV 1 , 15 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sensitivity of oral fluids for detecting influenza A virus in populations of vaccinated and non‐vaccinated pigs

Romagosa

Gramer

Joo

et al. 2011

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this paper as: Romagosa et al. (2011) Sensitivity of oral fluids for detecting influenza A virus in populations of vaccinated and non‐vaccinated pigs. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. Background/objective We evaluated the sensitivity of PCR on oral fluids in detecting influenza virus in vaccinated and non‐vaccinated pigs. Methods Three‐week‐old influenza‐free pigs were divided into three groups: (i) control, non‐vaccinated, (ii) vaccinated with a commercial, heterologous vaccine, and (iii) vaccinated with an experimental, homologous vaccine. After vaccination, an influenza‐infected pig was placed in contact with each of the groups. Individual nasal swabs and pen oral fluids were collected daily. Viral RNA was tested for the presence of influenza by RRT‐PCR and virus isolation attempted from oral fluids. A pen was considered positive if at least one nasal swab was positive. Results Based on nasal swab results, 43·8% of pens were detected positive but only 35% based on oral fluids. Overall sensitivity of oral fluids was 80%, and virus was isolated from 51% of RRT‐PCR‐positive oral fluids. The kappa coefficient for agreement (ĸ) between oral fluids and nasal swabs was 0·82. Among groups, ĸ was 1 (95% CI, 1–1), 0·74 (95% CI, 0·55–0·92), and 0·76 (95% CI, 0·5–1) for control, heterologous, and homologous‐vaccinated groups, respectively. There was less agreement when within pen prevalence was 10% or less. Probability of detecting influenza virus in oral fluids was 99% when within pen prevalence was higher than 18% and decreased to 69% when prevalence was 9%. Conclusions Results indicated that pen‐based collection of oral fluids is a sensitive method to detect influenza even when within pen prevalence is low and when pigs have been vaccinated and highlight the potential use of oral fluids for influenza surveillance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Diagnostic agreement for detection of PRRSV in individual oral fluids and serum by quantitative RRT‐PCR has been estimated at 77%. Overall, these results indicate that testing oral fluids can be a sensitive method to monitor populations for viral pathogens 1 , 15 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Sensitivity of oral fluids for detecting influenza A virus in populations of vaccinated and non‐vaccinated pigs

Romagosa

Gramer

Joo

et al. 2011

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, collecting oral fluid specimens requires less labor, is stress free for both animals and human beings, and is a sensitive method for detecting infections in populations. 5,[9][10][11][12] For these reasons, oral fluid sampling has been rapidly adopted by producers and veterinarians and has become routine on many farms. At the Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (Ames, IA), the specimen type "swine oral fluid" was entered into the laboratory information management system in February 2010.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of oral fluid PCRs was supported by research demonstrating their application to the oral fluid matrix. 1,5,[9][10][11][12] Routine implementation of the PRRSV oral fluid Ig ELISA test in diagnostic laboratories was supported by extensive assessment of assay performance. Specifically, an interlaboratory study of the ELISA using 276 oral fluid samples found 97.5% agreement among 12 participating laboratories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probability of detecting Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection using pen-based swine oral fluid specimens as a function of within-pen prevalence

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pen-based oral fluid sampling has proven to be an efficient method for surveillance of infectious diseases in swine populations. To better interpret diagnostic results, the performance of oral fluid assays (antibody- and nucleic acid-based) must be established for pen-based oral fluid samples. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the probability of detecting Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) infection in pen-based oral fluid samples from pens of known PRRSV prevalence. In 1 commercial swine barn, 25 pens were assigned to 1 of 5 levels of PRRSV prevalence (0%, 4%, 12%, 20%, or 36%) by placing a fixed number (0, 1, 3, 5, or 9) of PRRSV-positive pigs (14 days post PRRSV modified live virus vaccination) in each pen. Prior to placement of the vaccinated pigs, 1 oral fluid sample was collected from each pen. Thereafter, 5 oral fluid samples were collected from each pen, for a total of 150 samples. To confirm individual pig PRRSV status, serum samples from the PRRSV-negative pigs ( n = 535) and the PRRSV vaccinated pigs ( n = 90) were tested for PRRSV antibodies and PRRSV RNA. The 150 pen-based oral fluid samples were assayed for PRRSV antibody and PRRSV RNA at 6 laboratories. Among the 100 samples from pens containing ≥1 positive pig (≥4% prevalence) and tested at the 6 laboratories, the mean positivity was 62% for PRRSV RNA and 61% for PRRSV antibody. These results support the use of pen-based oral fluid sampling for PRRSV surveillance in commercial pig populations.

show abstract

“…Blood and oral fluid samples were taken in the morning on days 0, 3,5,7,10,14,21,28,35, and 42 postinfection (dpi) for evaluation by qRT-PCR and ELISA. Oral fluid sampling was conducted before blood sampling to reduce the chance that animals would refuse to bite on the ropes after physical manipulation.…”

Section: Animals Inoculation and Sample Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of the Lelystad strain of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection in individually housed pigs: comparison between serum and oral fluid samples for viral nucleic acid and antibody detection

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. There has been a developing interest in the use of oral fluid for the diagnosis of different pathogens such as Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). PRRSV and PRRSV-specific antibodies have been shown to be present in oral fluid samples, but the correlation between diagnostic results in oral fluid and serum samples has been insufficiently addressed. Studies investigating this correlation focused on boars older than 6 months and type 2 strains, but it is known that the outcome of a PRRSV infection is age and strain dependent. To address this gap, the current study reports on the detection of PRRSV and PRRSV-specific antibodies in serum and oral fluid samples collected over a 6-week period after an experimental infection of 8-week-old individually housed pigs with Lelystad virus, the type 1 prototype strain. Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis showed that significantly more serum samples were PRRSV RNApositive than oral fluid until 5 days postinfection (dpi). Between 7 and 21 dpi, PRRSV RNA detection was similar in both samples but higher detection rates in oral fluid were found from 28 dpi. Compared with existing literature, this highlights that detection rates at particular time points postinfection might vary in function of strain virulence and animal age and provides useful information for the interpretation of pen-based oral fluid results. An excellent agreement between the oral fluid and serum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results was observed at every time point, further supporting the usefulness of oral fluid as a diagnostic sample for antibody detection.

show abstract

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

Cited by 98 publications

References 20 publications

Sensitivity of oral fluids for detecting influenza A virus in populations of vaccinated and non‐vaccinated pigs

Sensitivity of oral fluids for detecting influenza A virus in populations of vaccinated and non‐vaccinated pigs

Probability of detecting Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection using pen-based swine oral fluid specimens as a function of within-pen prevalence

Diagnosis of the Lelystad strain of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection in individually housed pigs: comparison between serum and oral fluid samples for viral nucleic acid and antibody detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About