Finding PRRSV in sow herds: Family oral fluids vs. serum samples from due-to-wean pigs

Almeida, Marcelo Nunes de; Zhang, M.; Zimmerman, Jeffrey J.; Holtkamp, Derald; Linhares, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105397

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results con rmed the interest of FOF compared to serum at the litter level as at the batch level. The Cohen's Kappa calculated was almost the same that one calculated in previous study conducted in PRRSV-2 infected farms(Almeida et al, 2021). However, the conditions of both studies were different especially regarding sample collection.…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

“…In particular, individual or collective oral uids of weaners (Kittawornrat et al, 2014;Lebret et al, 2019), family oral uids (FOF) (Almeida et al, 2021;Osemeke et al, 2022), udder wipes (UW) (Vilalta et al, 2021a), processing uids (PF) (López et Recently, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians has reviewed its classi cation introducing PF and FOF alternative options to blood, alone or in combination with sera (Holtkamp et al, 2021). Different scenarios have been distinguished in the new classi cation taking into account the expected status and the within-herd prevalence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the conditions of both studies were different especially regarding sample collection. Indeed,Almeida et al (2021) sampled all piglets in each litter where FOF were collected and compared the results between both and we sampled serum from only one piglet per litter.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Alternative samples for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome surveillance in an endemic PRRSV-1 infected breeding herd: a descriptive study

Lebret¹,

Normand²,

Berton

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing PRRSV status is essential to design herd management protocols. For this, weaning-age pigs are a key subpopulation. In the last years, several alternatives to blood sampling have been tested because of easier, welfare friendly and cost saving tools. Moreover, most of them allow to test more animals and then, seem to be more sensitive in case of low prevalence scenario. However, these studies have been implemented mainly in PRRSV-2 infected herds. The first objective of our study was to compare the rate of detection of PRRSV-1 by RT-qPCR in individual serum samples, family oral fluid samples (FOF) and udder wipes (UW) collected the day before weaning. The second objective was to evaluate the interest of pooling. The study was performed on a 200-sows farrow-to-finish farm, PRRSV-1 infected and unstable. 119 litters were sampled (one sample type per litter). The rate of detection of PRRSV-1 in blood samples, FOF and UW was 10.9%, 7.6% and 0.8%, respectively. The agreement between sera and FOF was almost perfect even if detection capacity of sera was numerically superior to FOF. The Ct values on sera were statistically lower than FOF ones. Two modalities of pooling (1/3 and 1/5) were tested for sera and FOF. They showed that both modalities did not impact the qualification neither of the litter not of the batch PRRSV classification. On the other hand, even pooled by 3, most of the FOF pools gave negative results misclassifying many litters and batches. In the conditions of our study, in a PRRSV-1 infected scenario, FOF seemed to be a good alternative to blood sampling only when analysed individually and so a more costly alternative.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alternative samples for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome surveillance in an endemic PRRSV-1 infected breeding herd: a descriptive study

Lebret¹,

Normand²,

Berton

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier studies described the non-homogenous distribution of PRRSV in pig barns [ 14 , 23 ]; the non-homogenous areal distribution of infectious pathogens however is not limited to PRRSV alone [ 24 , 25 ]. This phenomenon may be explained by PRRSV being highly infectious but not necessarily highly contagious [ 26 ], or by the mere fact that pigs in conventional barns do not interact randomly with each other and are more likely to have direct contact with pigs within the same crate or with their closest neighbors [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The restricted movement of pigs in conventional swine barns and the non-homogenous distribution of viremic animals have been historically recognized to make conventional sample size assumptions (to detect a disease pathogen) not an exact fit; some previously proposed solutions include replacing simple random sampling with fixed spatial sampling [ 14 ], risk-based sampling [ 23 ], or stratified sampling [ 30 ]. This study provides another method to adjust conventional sampling schemes to better fit peculiarities with typical modern swine barns and with the ecology of PRRSV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-silico characterization of the relationship between the Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus prevalence at the piglet and litter levels in a farrowing room

Osemeke

Costa²,

Weide

et al. 2023

Porc Health Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Family oral fluids (FOF) sampling has been described as a sampling technique where a rope is exposed to sows and respective suckling litters and thereafter wrung to obtain fluids. PCR-based testing of FOF reveals presence of PRRS virus RNA only at the litter level, as opposed to conventional individual-animal-based sampling methods that demonstrate PRRSV RNA at the piglet level. The relationship between the PRRSV prevalence at the individual piglet level and at the litter level in a farrowing room has not been previously characterized. Using Monte Carlo simulations and data from a previous study, the relationship between the proportion of PRRSV-positive (viremic) pigs in the farrowing room, the proportion of litters in the farrowing room with at least one viremic pig, and the likely proportion of litters to be positive by a FOF RT-rtPCR test in a farrowing room was characterized, taking into account the spatial distribution (homogeneity) of viremic pigs within farrowing rooms. Results There was a linear relationship between piglet-level- and litter-level prevalence, where the latter was always larger than the former. When the piglet-level prevalence was 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 50%, the true-litter level prevalence was 5.36%, 8.93%, 14.29%, 23.21%, and 53.57%, respectively. The corresponding apparent-litter prevalence by FOF was 2.06%, 6.48%, 11.25%, 21.60%, and 51.56%, respectively. Conclusion This study provides matching prevalence estimates to help guide sample size calculations. It also provides a framework to estimate the likely proportion of viremic pigs, given the PRRSV RT-rtPCR positivity rate of FOF samples submitted from a farrowing room.

show abstract

Assessment of individual and population-based sampling for detection of Influenza A virus RNA in breeding swine herds

Moraes,

Gauger,

Osemeke

et al. 2024

Science Talks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Finding PRRSV in sow herds: Family oral fluids vs. serum samples from due-to-wean pigs

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

Alternative samples for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome surveillance in an endemic PRRSV-1 infected breeding herd: a descriptive study

Alternative samples for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome surveillance in an endemic PRRSV-1 infected breeding herd: a descriptive study

In-silico characterization of the relationship between the Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus prevalence at the piglet and litter levels in a farrowing room

Assessment of individual and population-based sampling for detection of Influenza A virus RNA in breeding swine herds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About