Hernandez-Garcia Juan, Robben Nardy, Magnée Damien, Eley Thomas, Dennis Ian, Kayes Sara M, Thomson Jill R, Tucker Alexander W
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, CB30ES Cambridge, England, UK.
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA USA.
Porcine Health Manag. 2017 Apr 5;3:7. doi: 10.1186/s40813-017-0055-4. eCollection 2017.
The usefulness of oral fluid (OF) sampling for surveillance of infections in pig populations is already accepted but its value as a tool to support investigations of porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) has been less well studied. This study set out to describe detection patterns of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), swine influenza virus type A (SIV) and () among farms showing differing severity of PRDC. The study included six wean-to-finish pig batches from farms with historical occurrence of respiratory disease. OF samples were collected from six pens every two weeks from the 5 to the 21 week of age and tested by real time PCR for presence of PRRSV, SIV and and by quantitative real time PCR for PCV2. Data was evaluated alongside clinical and post-mortem observations, mortality rate, slaughter pathology, histopathology, and immunohistochemistry testing data for PCV2 antigen where available.
PRRSV and were detectable in OF but with inconsistency between pens at the same sampling time and within pens over sequential sampling times. Detection of SIV in clinical and subclinical cases showed good consistency between pens at the same sampling time point with detection possible for periods of 2-4 weeks. Quantitative testing of OF for PCV2 indicated different patterns and levels of detection between farms unaffected or affected by porcine circovirus diseases (PCVD). There was good correlation of PCR results for multiple samples collected from the same pen but no associations were found between prevalence of positive test results and pen location in the building or sex of pigs.
Detection patterns for PRRSV, SIV and supported the effectiveness of OF testing as an additional tool for diagnostic investigation of PRDC but emphasised the importance of sampling from multiple pens and on multiple occasions. Preliminary evidence supported the measurement of PCV2 load in pooled OF as a tool for prediction of clinical or subclinical PCVD at farm level.
口腔液(OF)采样用于猪群感染监测的实用性已得到认可,但其作为支持猪呼吸道疾病综合征(PRDC)调查工具的价值研究较少。本研究旨在描述在表现出不同严重程度PRDC的猪场中,猪繁殖与呼吸综合征病毒(PRRSV)、猪圆环病毒2型(PCV2)、甲型流感病毒(SIV)及(此处原文缺失部分内容)的检测模式。该研究纳入了来自有呼吸道疾病病史猪场的6个断奶至育肥猪批次。从5周龄至21周龄,每两周从六个猪栏采集OF样本,并通过实时PCR检测PRRSV、SIV及(此处原文缺失部分内容),通过定量实时PCR检测PCV2。数据与临床和尸检观察结果、死亡率、屠宰病理学、组织病理学以及PCV2抗原的免疫组织化学检测数据(如可获得)一起进行评估。
PRRSV及(此处原文缺失部分内容)在OF中可检测到,但在同一采样时间不同猪栏之间以及连续采样时间内同一猪栏内存在不一致性。临床和亚临床病例中SIV的检测在同一采样时间点不同猪栏之间具有良好的一致性,可在2 - 4周内检测到。OF中PCV2的定量检测表明,未受或受猪圆环病毒病(PCVD)影响的猪场之间检测模式和水平不同。从同一猪栏采集的多个样本的PCR结果具有良好的相关性,但未发现阳性检测结果的患病率与猪栏在猪舍中的位置或猪的性别之间存在关联。
PRRSV、SIV及(此处原文缺失部分内容)的检测模式支持OF检测作为PRDC诊断调查的额外工具的有效性,但强调了从多个猪栏和多次采样的重要性。初步证据支持将合并的OF中PCV2载量的测量作为预测猪场临床或亚临床PCVD的工具。