Cargando…
Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle
BACKGROUND: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is caused by interactions among host, environment, and pathogens. One standard method for antemortem pathogen identification in cattle with BRD is deep-guarded nasopharyngeal swabbing, which is challenging, costly, and waste generating. The objective was...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9375289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35964128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-022-00197-6 |
_version_ | 1784767934327947264 |
---|---|
author | Crosby, William B. Pinnell, Lee J. Richeson, John T. Wolfe, Cory Castle, Jake Loy, John Dustin Gow, Sheryl P. Seo, Keun Seok Capik, Sarah F. Woolums, Amelia R. Morley, Paul S. |
author_facet | Crosby, William B. Pinnell, Lee J. Richeson, John T. Wolfe, Cory Castle, Jake Loy, John Dustin Gow, Sheryl P. Seo, Keun Seok Capik, Sarah F. Woolums, Amelia R. Morley, Paul S. |
author_sort | Crosby, William B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is caused by interactions among host, environment, and pathogens. One standard method for antemortem pathogen identification in cattle with BRD is deep-guarded nasopharyngeal swabbing, which is challenging, costly, and waste generating. The objective was to compare the ability to recover Mannheimia haemolytica and compare microbial community structure using 29.5 inch (74.9 cm) deep-guarded nasopharyngeal swabs, 16 inch (40.6 cm) unguarded proctology swabs, or 6 inch (15.2 cm) unguarded nasal swabs when characterized using culture, real time-qPCR, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Samples for aerobic culture, qPCR, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were collected from the upper respiratory tract of cattle 2 weeks after feedlot arrival. RESULTS: There was high concordance of culture and qPCR results for all swab types (results for 77% and 81% of sampled animals completely across all 3 swab types for culture and qPCR respectively). Microbial communities were highly similar among samples collected with different swab types, and differences identified relative to treatment for BRD were also similar. Positive qPCR results for M. haemolytica were highly concordant (81% agreed completely), but samples collected by deep-guarded swabbing had lower amounts of Mh DNA identified (Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance on ranks, P < 0.05; Dunn-test for pairwise comparison with Benjamini–Hochberg correction, P < 0.05) and lower frequency of positive compared to nasal and proctology swabs (McNemar’s Chi-square test, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Though differences existed among different types of swabs collected from individual cattle, nasal swabs and proctology swabs offer comparable results to deep-guarded nasopharyngeal swabs when identifying and characterizing M. haemolytica by culture, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and qPCR. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42523-022-00197-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9375289 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93752892022-08-14 Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle Crosby, William B. Pinnell, Lee J. Richeson, John T. Wolfe, Cory Castle, Jake Loy, John Dustin Gow, Sheryl P. Seo, Keun Seok Capik, Sarah F. Woolums, Amelia R. Morley, Paul S. Anim Microbiome Research Article BACKGROUND: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is caused by interactions among host, environment, and pathogens. One standard method for antemortem pathogen identification in cattle with BRD is deep-guarded nasopharyngeal swabbing, which is challenging, costly, and waste generating. The objective was to compare the ability to recover Mannheimia haemolytica and compare microbial community structure using 29.5 inch (74.9 cm) deep-guarded nasopharyngeal swabs, 16 inch (40.6 cm) unguarded proctology swabs, or 6 inch (15.2 cm) unguarded nasal swabs when characterized using culture, real time-qPCR, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Samples for aerobic culture, qPCR, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing were collected from the upper respiratory tract of cattle 2 weeks after feedlot arrival. RESULTS: There was high concordance of culture and qPCR results for all swab types (results for 77% and 81% of sampled animals completely across all 3 swab types for culture and qPCR respectively). Microbial communities were highly similar among samples collected with different swab types, and differences identified relative to treatment for BRD were also similar. Positive qPCR results for M. haemolytica were highly concordant (81% agreed completely), but samples collected by deep-guarded swabbing had lower amounts of Mh DNA identified (Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance on ranks, P < 0.05; Dunn-test for pairwise comparison with Benjamini–Hochberg correction, P < 0.05) and lower frequency of positive compared to nasal and proctology swabs (McNemar’s Chi-square test, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Though differences existed among different types of swabs collected from individual cattle, nasal swabs and proctology swabs offer comparable results to deep-guarded nasopharyngeal swabs when identifying and characterizing M. haemolytica by culture, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and qPCR. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42523-022-00197-6. BioMed Central 2022-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9375289/ /pubmed/35964128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-022-00197-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Article Crosby, William B. Pinnell, Lee J. Richeson, John T. Wolfe, Cory Castle, Jake Loy, John Dustin Gow, Sheryl P. Seo, Keun Seok Capik, Sarah F. Woolums, Amelia R. Morley, Paul S. Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle |
title | Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle |
title_full | Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle |
title_fullStr | Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle |
title_full_unstemmed | Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle |
title_short | Does swab type matter? Comparing methods for Mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle |
title_sort | does swab type matter? comparing methods for mannheimia haemolytica recovery and upper respiratory microbiome characterization in feedlot cattle |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9375289/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35964128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42523-022-00197-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT crosbywilliamb doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT pinnellleej doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT richesonjohnt doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT wolfecory doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT castlejake doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT loyjohndustin doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT gowsherylp doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT seokeunseok doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT capiksarahf doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT woolumsameliar doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle AT morleypauls doesswabtypemattercomparingmethodsformannheimiahaemolyticarecoveryandupperrespiratorymicrobiomecharacterizationinfeedlotcattle |