Characterizing best practices for tonsil-oral-scrubbing (TOSc) collection for PRRSV RNA detection in sows.

IF 3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Peng Li, Ana Paula Poeta Silva, Hao Tong, Paul Yeske, Laura Dalquist, Jason Kelly, Matt Finch, Amanda V Anderson Reever, Darwin L Reicks, Joseph F Connor, Phillip C Gauger, Derald J Holtkamp, Gustavo S Silva, Giovani Trevisan, Daniel C L Linhares
{"title":"Characterizing best practices for tonsil-oral-scrubbing (TOSc) collection for PRRSV RNA detection in sows.","authors":"Peng Li, Ana Paula Poeta Silva, Hao Tong, Paul Yeske, Laura Dalquist, Jason Kelly, Matt Finch, Amanda V Anderson Reever, Darwin L Reicks, Joseph F Connor, Phillip C Gauger, Derald J Holtkamp, Gustavo S Silva, Giovani Trevisan, Daniel C L Linhares","doi":"10.1186/s40813-024-00385-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A Tonsil-Oral-Scrubbing (TOSc) method was developed to sample the sow's oropharyngeal and tonsillar area without snaring and has shown comparable porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RNA detection rates with tonsil scraping in infected sows. This study investigated the effect of specific TOSc collection factors on the PRRSV RT-rtPCR results (detection rates and Ct values). Those factors include whether the sow was snared or not snared at TOSc collection (\"snared\" vs. \"not snared\"); whether the sow was laying down or standing at collection (\"laying down\" vs. \"standing\"); and type of collectors used for TOSc collection (\"TOSc prototype\" vs. \"Spiral-headed AI catheter (SHAC)\"). Volume of fluid was compared between \"snared\" and \"not snared\" groups, and collection time was compared between \"laying down\" and \"standing\" groups as well.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The effect for each factor was assessed in three independent studies following the same design: TOSc was collected twice from each studied sow, once with the baseline level for a factor (\"not snared\", or \"standing\", or \"TOSc prototype\"), and another time followed by the other level of the paired factor (\"snared\", \"laying down\", or \"SHAC\", correspondingly). Results showed that \"not snared\" TOSc had numerically higher PRRSV RNA detection rate (60.7% vs. 52.5%, p = 0.11), significantly lower median Ct values (31.9 vs. 32.3, p < 0.01), and significantly higher volume of fluid than \"snared\" samples (1.8 mL vs. 1.2 mL, p < 0.01); \"laying down\" TOSc samples did not differ statistically (60.7% vs. 60.7%) in the PRRSV RNA detection rate, obtained numerically lower median Ct values (30.9 vs. 31.3, p = 0.19), but took 40% less collection time compared to \"standing\" TOSc samples; samples collected using the \"TOSc prototype\" had numerically higher PRRSV RNA detection rate (91.7% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.27) and significantly lower median Ct values (32.8 vs. 34.5, p < 0.01) than that from \"SHAC\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Under the conditions of this study best practices for TOSc collection aiming higher detection rate of PRRSV RNA while minimizing time for collection were suggested to be sampling TOSc without snaring, when sows are laying down, and using a prototype TOSc collector.</p>","PeriodicalId":20352,"journal":{"name":"Porcine Health Management","volume":"10 1","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Porcine Health Management","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00385-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A Tonsil-Oral-Scrubbing (TOSc) method was developed to sample the sow's oropharyngeal and tonsillar area without snaring and has shown comparable porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RNA detection rates with tonsil scraping in infected sows. This study investigated the effect of specific TOSc collection factors on the PRRSV RT-rtPCR results (detection rates and Ct values). Those factors include whether the sow was snared or not snared at TOSc collection ("snared" vs. "not snared"); whether the sow was laying down or standing at collection ("laying down" vs. "standing"); and type of collectors used for TOSc collection ("TOSc prototype" vs. "Spiral-headed AI catheter (SHAC)"). Volume of fluid was compared between "snared" and "not snared" groups, and collection time was compared between "laying down" and "standing" groups as well.

Results: The effect for each factor was assessed in three independent studies following the same design: TOSc was collected twice from each studied sow, once with the baseline level for a factor ("not snared", or "standing", or "TOSc prototype"), and another time followed by the other level of the paired factor ("snared", "laying down", or "SHAC", correspondingly). Results showed that "not snared" TOSc had numerically higher PRRSV RNA detection rate (60.7% vs. 52.5%, p = 0.11), significantly lower median Ct values (31.9 vs. 32.3, p < 0.01), and significantly higher volume of fluid than "snared" samples (1.8 mL vs. 1.2 mL, p < 0.01); "laying down" TOSc samples did not differ statistically (60.7% vs. 60.7%) in the PRRSV RNA detection rate, obtained numerically lower median Ct values (30.9 vs. 31.3, p = 0.19), but took 40% less collection time compared to "standing" TOSc samples; samples collected using the "TOSc prototype" had numerically higher PRRSV RNA detection rate (91.7% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.27) and significantly lower median Ct values (32.8 vs. 34.5, p < 0.01) than that from "SHAC".

Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study best practices for TOSc collection aiming higher detection rate of PRRSV RNA while minimizing time for collection were suggested to be sampling TOSc without snaring, when sows are laying down, and using a prototype TOSc collector.

确定用于检测母猪 PRRSV RNA 的扁桃体-口腔擦洗 (TOSc) 采集的最佳方法。
背景:扁桃体-口腔-擦洗(TOSc)法是在不使用捕捉器的情况下对母猪的口咽和扁桃体区域进行采样的方法,在感染母猪中,该方法的猪繁殖与呼吸综合征病毒(PRRSV)RNA检出率与扁桃体擦洗法相当。本研究调查了特定 TOSc 采集因素对 PRRSV RT-rtPCR 结果(检测率和 Ct 值)的影响。这些因素包括收集 TOSc 时母猪是否被套住("套住 "与 "未套住");收集时母猪是躺着还是站着("躺着 "与 "站着");以及收集 TOSc 时使用的收集器类型("TOSc 原型 "与 "螺旋头人工授精导管 (SHAC)")。对 "套管 "组和 "未套管 "组的液体量进行了比较,并对 "躺下 "组和 "站立 "组的收集时间进行了比较:结果:三项独立研究采用相同的设计对每个因素的影响进行了评估:对每头被研究的母猪采集两次 TOSc,一次是某一因子的基线水平("未被套牢"、"站立 "或 "TOSc 原型"),另一次是配对因子的另一水平("被套牢"、"躺下 "或 "SHAC")。在本研究的条件下,为了提高 PRRSV RNA 的检出率,同时最大限度地缩短收集时间,建议在不使用捕捉器、母猪躺下时进行 TOSc 采样,并使用原型 TOSc 收集器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Porcine Health Management
Porcine Health Management Veterinary-Food Animals
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
49
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Porcine Health Management (PHM) is an open access peer-reviewed journal that aims to publish relevant, novel and revised information regarding all aspects of swine health medicine and production.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信