Cargando…

Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of influenza A virus infections is critical for outbreak control. Due to their rapidity and other logistical advantages, lateral flow immunoassays can support influenza A virus surveillance programs and here, their field performance was proactively assessed. The performa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ssematimba, Amos, Malladi, Sasidhar, Bonney, Peter J., Flores-Figueroa, Cristian, Muñoz-Aguayo, Jeannette, Halvorson, David A., Cardona, Carol J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30176867
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1602-1
_version_ 1783352660783529984
author Ssematimba, Amos
Malladi, Sasidhar
Bonney, Peter J.
Flores-Figueroa, Cristian
Muñoz-Aguayo, Jeannette
Halvorson, David A.
Cardona, Carol J.
author_facet Ssematimba, Amos
Malladi, Sasidhar
Bonney, Peter J.
Flores-Figueroa, Cristian
Muñoz-Aguayo, Jeannette
Halvorson, David A.
Cardona, Carol J.
author_sort Ssematimba, Amos
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of influenza A virus infections is critical for outbreak control. Due to their rapidity and other logistical advantages, lateral flow immunoassays can support influenza A virus surveillance programs and here, their field performance was proactively assessed. The performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction and two lateral flow immunoassay kits (FluDETECT and VetScan) in detecting low pathogenicity influenza A virus in oropharyngeal swab samples from experimentally inoculated broiler chickens was evaluated and at a flock-level, different testing scenarios were analyzed. RESULTS: For real-time polymerase chain reaction positive individual-swabs, FluDETECT respectively detected 37% and 58% for the H5 and H7 LPAIV compared to 28% and 42% for VetScan. The mean virus titer in H7 samples was higher than for H5 samples. For real-time polymerase chain reaction positive pooled swabs (containing one positive), detections by FluDETECT were significantly higher in the combined 5- and 6-swab samples compared to 11-swab samples. FluDETECT detected 58%, 55.1% and 44.9% for the H7 subtype and 28.3%, 34.0% and 24.6% for the H5 in pools of 5, 6 and 11 respectively. In our testing scenario analysis, at low flock-level LPAIV infection prevalence, testing pools of 11 detected slightly more infections while at higher prevalence, testing pools of 5 or 6 performed better. For highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, testing pools of 11 (versus 5 or 6) detected up to 5% more infections under the assumption of similar sensitivity across pools and detected less by 3% when its sensitivity was assumed to be lower. CONCLUSIONS: Much as pooling a bigger number of swab samples increases the chances of having a positive swab included in the sample to be tested, this study’s outcomes indicate that this practice may actually reduce the chances of detecting the virus since it may result into lowering the virus titer of the pooled sample. Further analysis on whether having more than one positive swab in a pooled sample would result in increased sensitivity for low pathogenicity avian influenza virus is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6122460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61224602018-09-05 Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance Ssematimba, Amos Malladi, Sasidhar Bonney, Peter J. Flores-Figueroa, Cristian Muñoz-Aguayo, Jeannette Halvorson, David A. Cardona, Carol J. BMC Vet Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of influenza A virus infections is critical for outbreak control. Due to their rapidity and other logistical advantages, lateral flow immunoassays can support influenza A virus surveillance programs and here, their field performance was proactively assessed. The performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction and two lateral flow immunoassay kits (FluDETECT and VetScan) in detecting low pathogenicity influenza A virus in oropharyngeal swab samples from experimentally inoculated broiler chickens was evaluated and at a flock-level, different testing scenarios were analyzed. RESULTS: For real-time polymerase chain reaction positive individual-swabs, FluDETECT respectively detected 37% and 58% for the H5 and H7 LPAIV compared to 28% and 42% for VetScan. The mean virus titer in H7 samples was higher than for H5 samples. For real-time polymerase chain reaction positive pooled swabs (containing one positive), detections by FluDETECT were significantly higher in the combined 5- and 6-swab samples compared to 11-swab samples. FluDETECT detected 58%, 55.1% and 44.9% for the H7 subtype and 28.3%, 34.0% and 24.6% for the H5 in pools of 5, 6 and 11 respectively. In our testing scenario analysis, at low flock-level LPAIV infection prevalence, testing pools of 11 detected slightly more infections while at higher prevalence, testing pools of 5 or 6 performed better. For highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, testing pools of 11 (versus 5 or 6) detected up to 5% more infections under the assumption of similar sensitivity across pools and detected less by 3% when its sensitivity was assumed to be lower. CONCLUSIONS: Much as pooling a bigger number of swab samples increases the chances of having a positive swab included in the sample to be tested, this study’s outcomes indicate that this practice may actually reduce the chances of detecting the virus since it may result into lowering the virus titer of the pooled sample. Further analysis on whether having more than one positive swab in a pooled sample would result in increased sensitivity for low pathogenicity avian influenza virus is needed. BioMed Central 2018-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6122460/ /pubmed/30176867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1602-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ssematimba, Amos
Malladi, Sasidhar
Bonney, Peter J.
Flores-Figueroa, Cristian
Muñoz-Aguayo, Jeannette
Halvorson, David A.
Cardona, Carol J.
Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance
title Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance
title_full Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance
title_fullStr Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance
title_full_unstemmed Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance
title_short Quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza A viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance
title_sort quantifying the effect of swab pool size on the detection of influenza a viruses in broiler chickens and its implications for surveillance
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30176867
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1602-1
work_keys_str_mv AT ssematimbaamos quantifyingtheeffectofswabpoolsizeonthedetectionofinfluenzaavirusesinbroilerchickensanditsimplicationsforsurveillance
AT malladisasidhar quantifyingtheeffectofswabpoolsizeonthedetectionofinfluenzaavirusesinbroilerchickensanditsimplicationsforsurveillance
AT bonneypeterj quantifyingtheeffectofswabpoolsizeonthedetectionofinfluenzaavirusesinbroilerchickensanditsimplicationsforsurveillance
AT floresfigueroacristian quantifyingtheeffectofswabpoolsizeonthedetectionofinfluenzaavirusesinbroilerchickensanditsimplicationsforsurveillance
AT munozaguayojeannette quantifyingtheeffectofswabpoolsizeonthedetectionofinfluenzaavirusesinbroilerchickensanditsimplicationsforsurveillance
AT halvorsondavida quantifyingtheeffectofswabpoolsizeonthedetectionofinfluenzaavirusesinbroilerchickensanditsimplicationsforsurveillance
AT cardonacarolj quantifyingtheeffectofswabpoolsizeonthedetectionofinfluenzaavirusesinbroilerchickensanditsimplicationsforsurveillance