Cargando…

Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs

Influenza A virus (IAV) is economically important in pig production and has broad public health implications. In Europe, active IAV surveillance includes demonstration of antigen in nasal swabs and/or demonstration of antibodies in serum (SER) samples; however, collecting appropriate numbers of indi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gerber, Priscilla F., Dawson, Lorna, Strugnell, Ben, Burgess, Robert, Brown, Helen, Opriessnig, Tanja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5645835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29067204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/vms3.51
_version_ 1783271965875765248
author Gerber, Priscilla F.
Dawson, Lorna
Strugnell, Ben
Burgess, Robert
Brown, Helen
Opriessnig, Tanja
author_facet Gerber, Priscilla F.
Dawson, Lorna
Strugnell, Ben
Burgess, Robert
Brown, Helen
Opriessnig, Tanja
author_sort Gerber, Priscilla F.
collection PubMed
description Influenza A virus (IAV) is economically important in pig production and has broad public health implications. In Europe, active IAV surveillance includes demonstration of antigen in nasal swabs and/or demonstration of antibodies in serum (SER) samples; however, collecting appropriate numbers of individual pig samples can be costly and labour‐intensive. The objective of this study was to compare the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive populations using SER versus oral fluid (OF) samples. Paired pen samples, one OF and 5–14 SER samples, were collected cross‐sectional or longitudinally. A commercial nucleoprotein (NP)‐based blocking ELISA was used to test 244 OF and 1004 SER samples from 123 pens each containing 20–540 pigs located in 27 UK herds. Overall, the IAV antibody detection rate was higher in SER samples compared to OFs under the study conditions. Pig age had a significant effect on the probability of detecting positive pens. For 3–9‐week‐old pigs the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive samples in a pen with 95% confidence intervals was 40% (23–60) for OF and 61% (0.37–0.80) for SER (P = 0.04), for 10–14‐week‐old pigs it was 19% (8–40) for OF and 93% (0.71–0.99) for SER (P < 0.01), and for 18–20‐week‐old pigs it was 67% (41–85) for OF and 81% (0.63–0.91) for SER (P = 0.05). Collecting more than one OF sample in pens with more than 25 less than 18‐week‐old pigs should be further investigated in the future to elucidate the suitability of OF for IAV surveillance in herds with large pen sizes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5645835
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56458352017-10-24 Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs Gerber, Priscilla F. Dawson, Lorna Strugnell, Ben Burgess, Robert Brown, Helen Opriessnig, Tanja Vet Med Sci Original Articles Influenza A virus (IAV) is economically important in pig production and has broad public health implications. In Europe, active IAV surveillance includes demonstration of antigen in nasal swabs and/or demonstration of antibodies in serum (SER) samples; however, collecting appropriate numbers of individual pig samples can be costly and labour‐intensive. The objective of this study was to compare the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive populations using SER versus oral fluid (OF) samples. Paired pen samples, one OF and 5–14 SER samples, were collected cross‐sectional or longitudinally. A commercial nucleoprotein (NP)‐based blocking ELISA was used to test 244 OF and 1004 SER samples from 123 pens each containing 20–540 pigs located in 27 UK herds. Overall, the IAV antibody detection rate was higher in SER samples compared to OFs under the study conditions. Pig age had a significant effect on the probability of detecting positive pens. For 3–9‐week‐old pigs the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive samples in a pen with 95% confidence intervals was 40% (23–60) for OF and 61% (0.37–0.80) for SER (P = 0.04), for 10–14‐week‐old pigs it was 19% (8–40) for OF and 93% (0.71–0.99) for SER (P < 0.01), and for 18–20‐week‐old pigs it was 67% (41–85) for OF and 81% (0.63–0.91) for SER (P = 0.05). Collecting more than one OF sample in pens with more than 25 less than 18‐week‐old pigs should be further investigated in the future to elucidate the suitability of OF for IAV surveillance in herds with large pen sizes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5645835/ /pubmed/29067204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/vms3.51 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Veterinary Medicine and Science Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Gerber, Priscilla F.
Dawson, Lorna
Strugnell, Ben
Burgess, Robert
Brown, Helen
Opriessnig, Tanja
Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs
title Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs
title_full Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs
title_fullStr Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs
title_full_unstemmed Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs
title_short Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs
title_sort using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza a virus surveillance in farmed uk pigs
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5645835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29067204
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/vms3.51
work_keys_str_mv AT gerberpriscillaf usingoralfluidssamplesforindirectinfluenzaavirussurveillanceinfarmedukpigs
AT dawsonlorna usingoralfluidssamplesforindirectinfluenzaavirussurveillanceinfarmedukpigs
AT strugnellben usingoralfluidssamplesforindirectinfluenzaavirussurveillanceinfarmedukpigs
AT burgessrobert usingoralfluidssamplesforindirectinfluenzaavirussurveillanceinfarmedukpigs
AT brownhelen usingoralfluidssamplesforindirectinfluenzaavirussurveillanceinfarmedukpigs
AT opriessnigtanja usingoralfluidssamplesforindirectinfluenzaavirussurveillanceinfarmedukpigs