猪流感监测:在广泛的诊断范围和特异性病毒特征描述之间取得平衡。

IF 3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Julia Stadler, Sophia Zwickl, Sophie Gumbert, Mathias Ritzmann, Kathrin Lillie-Jaschniski, Timm Harder, Annika Graaf-Rau, Vassilis Skampardonis, Matthias Eddicks
{"title":"猪流感监测:在广泛的诊断范围和特异性病毒特征描述之间取得平衡。","authors":"Julia Stadler, Sophia Zwickl, Sophie Gumbert, Mathias Ritzmann, Kathrin Lillie-Jaschniski, Timm Harder, Annika Graaf-Rau, Vassilis Skampardonis, Matthias Eddicks","doi":"10.1186/s40813-024-00367-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Monitoring of infectious diseases on swine farms requires a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the test system. Moreover, particularly in cases of swine influenza A virus (swIAV) it is desirable to include characterization of the virus as precisely as possible. This is indispensable for strategies concerning prophylaxis of swIAV and furthermore, to meet the requirements of a purposeful monitoring of newly emerging swIAV strains in terms of vaccine design and public health. Within the present cross-sectional study, we compared the diagnostic value of group samples (wipes of surfaces with direct contact to mouth/nose, dust wipes, udder skin wipes, oral fluids) to individual samples (nasal swabs, tracheobronchial swabs) for both swIAV identification and characterization. Sampling included different stages of pig production on 25 sow farms with attached nursery considered as enzootically infected with swIAV. Firstly, samples were analyzed for IAV genome and subsequently samples with Ct-values < 32 were subtyped by multiplex RT-qPCR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nasal swabs of suckling piglets and nursery pigs resulted in a higher odds to detect swIAV (p < 0.001) and to identify swIAV subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05) compared to nasal swabs of sows. In suckling piglets, significant higher rates of swIAV detection could be observed for nasal swabs (p = 0.007) and sow udder skin wipes (p = 0.036) compared to contact wipes. In the nursery, group sampling specimens were significantly more often swIAV positive compared to individual samples (p < 0.01), with exception of the comparison between contact wipes and nasal swabs (p = 0.181). However, in general nasal swabs were more likely to have Ct-value < 32 and thus, to be suitable for subtyping by RT-qPCR compared to dust wipes, contact wipes, udder skin wipes and tracheobronchial swabs (p < 0.05). Interestingly, different subtypes were found in different age groups as well as in different specimens in the same holding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although population-based specimens are highly effective for swIAV monitoring, nasal swabs are still the preferable sampling material for the surveillance of on-farm circulating strains due to significantly higher virus loads. Remarkably, sampling strategies should incorporate suckling piglets and different age groups within the nursery to cover as many as possible of the on-farm circulating strains.</p>","PeriodicalId":20352,"journal":{"name":"Porcine Health Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11104006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Stadler, Sophia Zwickl, Sophie Gumbert, Mathias Ritzmann, Kathrin Lillie-Jaschniski, Timm Harder, Annika Graaf-Rau, Vassilis Skampardonis, Matthias Eddicks\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40813-024-00367-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Monitoring of infectious diseases on swine farms requires a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the test system. Moreover, particularly in cases of swine influenza A virus (swIAV) it is desirable to include characterization of the virus as precisely as possible. This is indispensable for strategies concerning prophylaxis of swIAV and furthermore, to meet the requirements of a purposeful monitoring of newly emerging swIAV strains in terms of vaccine design and public health. Within the present cross-sectional study, we compared the diagnostic value of group samples (wipes of surfaces with direct contact to mouth/nose, dust wipes, udder skin wipes, oral fluids) to individual samples (nasal swabs, tracheobronchial swabs) for both swIAV identification and characterization. Sampling included different stages of pig production on 25 sow farms with attached nursery considered as enzootically infected with swIAV. Firstly, samples were analyzed for IAV genome and subsequently samples with Ct-values < 32 were subtyped by multiplex RT-qPCR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nasal swabs of suckling piglets and nursery pigs resulted in a higher odds to detect swIAV (p < 0.001) and to identify swIAV subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05) compared to nasal swabs of sows. In suckling piglets, significant higher rates of swIAV detection could be observed for nasal swabs (p = 0.007) and sow udder skin wipes (p = 0.036) compared to contact wipes. In the nursery, group sampling specimens were significantly more often swIAV positive compared to individual samples (p < 0.01), with exception of the comparison between contact wipes and nasal swabs (p = 0.181). However, in general nasal swabs were more likely to have Ct-value < 32 and thus, to be suitable for subtyping by RT-qPCR compared to dust wipes, contact wipes, udder skin wipes and tracheobronchial swabs (p < 0.05). Interestingly, different subtypes were found in different age groups as well as in different specimens in the same holding.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although population-based specimens are highly effective for swIAV monitoring, nasal swabs are still the preferable sampling material for the surveillance of on-farm circulating strains due to significantly higher virus loads. Remarkably, sampling strategies should incorporate suckling piglets and different age groups within the nursery to cover as many as possible of the on-farm circulating strains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Porcine Health Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11104006/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Porcine Health Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00367-9\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Porcine Health Management","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00367-9","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

摘要

背景:猪场传染病监测要求检测系统具有较高的诊断灵敏度和特异性。此外,特别是在猪甲型流感病毒(swIAV)的情况下,最好能尽可能精确地确定病毒的特征。这对于猪甲型流感病毒的预防策略是不可或缺的,此外,还能满足在疫苗设计和公共卫生方面对新出现的猪甲型流感病毒毒株进行有目的监测的要求。在本横断面研究中,我们比较了群体样本(直接接触口/鼻的表面擦拭物、灰尘擦拭物、乳房皮肤擦拭物、口腔液)和个体样本(鼻拭子、气管支气管拭子)对 swIAV 鉴定和特征描述的诊断价值。采样范围包括 25 个母猪场的不同养猪阶段,这些母猪场附带的保育舍被认为是 swIAV 的集中感染区。首先分析样本的 IAV 基因组,然后分析样本的 Ct 值 结果:乳仔猪和保育猪鼻拭子检测到 swIAV 的几率较高(p 结论:虽然以群体为基础的标本是检测猪感染 swIAV 的有效方法,但这一方法并不可靠:虽然基于群体的样本对 swIAV 监测非常有效,但鼻拭子仍是监测猪场流行毒株的首选采样材料,因为其病毒载量明显更高。值得注意的是,采样策略应包括哺乳仔猪和保育舍内的不同年龄组,以尽可能多地覆盖场内流行毒株。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization.

Background: Monitoring of infectious diseases on swine farms requires a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the test system. Moreover, particularly in cases of swine influenza A virus (swIAV) it is desirable to include characterization of the virus as precisely as possible. This is indispensable for strategies concerning prophylaxis of swIAV and furthermore, to meet the requirements of a purposeful monitoring of newly emerging swIAV strains in terms of vaccine design and public health. Within the present cross-sectional study, we compared the diagnostic value of group samples (wipes of surfaces with direct contact to mouth/nose, dust wipes, udder skin wipes, oral fluids) to individual samples (nasal swabs, tracheobronchial swabs) for both swIAV identification and characterization. Sampling included different stages of pig production on 25 sow farms with attached nursery considered as enzootically infected with swIAV. Firstly, samples were analyzed for IAV genome and subsequently samples with Ct-values < 32 were subtyped by multiplex RT-qPCR.

Results: Nasal swabs of suckling piglets and nursery pigs resulted in a higher odds to detect swIAV (p < 0.001) and to identify swIAV subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05) compared to nasal swabs of sows. In suckling piglets, significant higher rates of swIAV detection could be observed for nasal swabs (p = 0.007) and sow udder skin wipes (p = 0.036) compared to contact wipes. In the nursery, group sampling specimens were significantly more often swIAV positive compared to individual samples (p < 0.01), with exception of the comparison between contact wipes and nasal swabs (p = 0.181). However, in general nasal swabs were more likely to have Ct-value < 32 and thus, to be suitable for subtyping by RT-qPCR compared to dust wipes, contact wipes, udder skin wipes and tracheobronchial swabs (p < 0.05). Interestingly, different subtypes were found in different age groups as well as in different specimens in the same holding.

Conclusion: Although population-based specimens are highly effective for swIAV monitoring, nasal swabs are still the preferable sampling material for the surveillance of on-farm circulating strains due to significantly higher virus loads. Remarkably, sampling strategies should incorporate suckling piglets and different age groups within the nursery to cover as many as possible of the on-farm circulating strains.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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