Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Probability of PRRS virus detection in pooled processing fluid samples.
- Journal:
- Veterinary microbiology
- Year:
- 2021
- Authors:
- López, Will A et al.
- Affiliation:
- Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine Department · United States
Plain-English summary
This study looked at how effective it is to test pooled samples of processing fluids from pigs for the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), which can affect their health. Researchers wanted to find out how many litters could be combined into one sample without losing the ability to detect the virus, especially when it is not very common. They tested samples from a herd that had never been infected with PRRSV, mixing in a sample from a litter that had one piglet with the virus. The results showed that the likelihood of detecting the virus decreased as more uninfected piglets were added to the sample, but it was still possible to find the virus even in large groups. Overall, the study supports the idea of pooling samples from different litters for testing, which can be a useful strategy for monitoring PRRSV in pig populations.
Abstract
There has been a tremendous increase in recent years of population-based diagnostic monitoring and surveillance strategies in swine populations. One example is the use of processing fluids (PF) to screen breeding herds for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) activity. An important question from practitioners using such methods is on how intensively can the sample be pooled. More specifically, processing fluids of how many litters can be pooled into a single sample for diagnostic testing to preserve a high probability of PRRSV RNA detection at low prevalence situations? The objective of this study was to model the effect of pooling PF samples on the probability of PRRSV RNA detection. For this study, a PRRSV-positive PF field sample with a RT-rtPCR quantification cycle (Cq) value of 28 was selected to represent a litter of 11 pigs with a single viremic piglet. PF samples from a PRRSV-naïve herd were used to perform 6 replications of 8 two-fold serial dilutions of the PRRSV-positive sample, thus modeling the pooling effect (dilution). Each two-fold dilution represented an increase in the number of PRRS-negative pigs in the sample by a factor of 2. Samples were tested for PRRSV RNA by RT-rtPCR and the data was analyzed using linear and probit regression models. There was an average increment of 1.37 points in Ct for each two-fold dilution. The estimated probability of testing positive on RT-rtPCR was 43 %, 80 %, and 95 % when there was a single PRRSv-positive piglet among 784, 492, and 323 PRRSv-negative piglets contributing to the sample respectively. Results from this study support the practice of collecting and aggregating PF samples from multiple litters for PRRSV RNA testing.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34411996/