PDF herunterladen
Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2021; 49(02): 112-119
DOI: 10.1055/a-1385-5982
Originalartikel

Vergleich von Probenmaterialien zur Früherkennung einer Infektion mit dem Virus des Porzinen Reproduktiven und Respiratorischen Syndroms

Comparison of sample materials for the detection of infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
Philipp Könighoff
Außenstelle für Epidemiologie, Bakum, Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover
,
Elisabeth große Beilage
,
Andrea Menrath
,
Isabel Hennig-Pauka
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Gegenstand und Ziel In Zuchtbetrieben mit hohem Gesundheitsniveau werden Schweine häufig mit invasiven Methoden (Blutprobenentnahme) beprobt. Ziel der Untersuchung war die Evaluierung von weniger invasiven Verfahren auf ihre Eignung zur Früherkennung einer Infektion mit dem Virus des Porzinen Reproduktiven und Respiratorischen Syndroms (PRRSV).

Material und Methoden Blut- und Speicheltupfer sowie Kaustrick- und Serumproben wurden von 19 Jungsauen zu unterschiedlichen Zeitpunkten nach intramuskulärer bzw. intranasaler Impfung mit PRRSV-1 oder -2 mittels PCR untersucht. Die Tupfer wurden mit Speichel von der Maulschleimhaut bzw. nach einem oberflächlichen Nadelstich mit Ohrvenenblut benetzt. Zur Serumgewinnung erfolgte eine Punktion der V. jugularis externa. Die Kaustricke wurden auf Kopfhöhe der Jungsauen für 30 Minuten in die Bucht gehängt.

Ergebnisse Alle Tiere waren zum Zeitpunkt der Impfung (Beprobungszeitpunkt 0) PRRSV-negativ. Die ersten Virusnachweise gelangen 12 Stunden p. vacc. im Serum. Ab Tag 4 p. vacc. waren alle Tiere virämisch und ab Tag 10 p. vacc. nahm der Anteil der positiven Tiere ab. Die ersten Nachweise im GenoTube®-Bluttupfer gelangen 36 Stunden nach der Impfung. Die Untersuchung der eSwabs®-Bluttupfer ergab im gesamten Zeitraum nur einen einzigen Virusnachweis. Im Speichel konnte an Tag 5 p. vacc. Virus-RNA nachgewiesen werden.

Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz Die Studie zeigt, dass Serumproben aus der V. jugularis externa weiterhin als Goldstandard angesehen werden können, da die Nachweisraten höher liegen als in alternativen Probenmedien. Da Entnahme und Verarbeitung der alternativen Probenmaterialien allerdings deutliche Vorteile bieten, sollte versucht werden, diese Verfahren weiter zu verbessern. Die verwendete Methode mit eSwab®-Bluttupfern ist keine Alternative in der Diagnostik einer PRRSV-Frühinfektion, für ihren Einsatz wäre eine Optimierung notwendig.

Abstract

Objective In breeding farms with a high health status, pigs are frequently sampled using invasive methods (i. e. blood sampling). The aim of the present study was to evaluate less invasive methods concerning their suitability for an early detection of the infection with the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV).

Material and methods Blood and saliva swabs, chewing rope derived oral fluids and serum samples were used for PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 detection via PCR. 19 gilts were repeatedly sampled following intramuscular or intranasal vaccination with live-attenuated vaccines containing PRRSV-1 or -2. Swabs were either moistened with saliva from the mouth mucosa or with blood from the ear veins following superficial needle puncture. Serum samples were taken via puncture of the V. jugularis externa. Chewing ropes served for a means of oral fluid sampling and were kept hanging in the barn at the pigs’ head height for 30 minutes.

Results All animals were negative for PRRSV at the time of vaccination (sampling point 0). In serum samples, the first virus detection was achieved 12 hours following vaccination (p. vacc.). From day 4 p. vacc. on all animals were viremic and from day 10 p. vacc. on the percentage of positive animals decreased. The first detection of PRRSV in GenoTube® blood swabs was possible 36 hours p. vacc. Examination of the eSwab® blood swab resulted in only one positive finding within the entire testing period. In the saliva samples, first detection of PRRSV was possible on day 5 p. vacc.

Conclusion and clinical relevance This study demonstrates that serum samples taken from the V. jugularis externa may be considered as the gold standard for diagnostic of PRRSV viremia. Detection rates in serum were higher than in the alternative sample types. However, since sample collection procedures and processing of the alternative sample materials offer clear advantages with regard to welfare, practical handling and logistics, further attempts are warranted in order to improve these methods. Based on the presented results, the described method using eSwab® blood sampling does not represent a satisfactory alternative approach for the detection of early PRRSV infection. Future application of this method warrants further improvement of its diagnostic efficacy.

Schlüsselwörter

Trockentupfer - Serum - GenoTube® - Speichel - PRRSV

Key words

Dry swabs - serum - GenoTube® - saliva - PRRSV


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 23. April 2020

Angenommen: 06. Oktober 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
26. April 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Adams MJ, Lefkowitz EJ, King AM. et al. Ratification vote on taxonomic proposals to the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2016). Arch Virol 2016; 161: 2921-2949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Holtkamp DJ, Kliebenstein JB, Neumann E. et al. Assessment of the economic impact of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus on United States pork producers. J Swine Health Prod 2013; 21: 72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rovira A, Reicks D, Munoz-Zanzi C. Evaluation of surveillance protocols for detecting porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection in boar studs by simulation modeling. J Vet Diagn Invest 2007; 19: 492-501
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nathues H, Nienhoff H, große Beilage E. et al. Monitoring-Systeme in Zuchtschweinebeständen aus Sicht der Wissenschaft. Dtsch Tierärztebl 2011; 10: 1324-1334
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kittawornrat A, Prickett J, Chittick W. et al. Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) in serum and oral fluid samples from individual boars: Will oral fluid replace serum for PRRSV surveillance?. Virus Res 2010; 154: 170-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gerber PF, O’Neill K, Owolodun O. et al. Comparison of commercial real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays for reliable, early, and rapid detection of heterologous strains of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in experimentally infected or noninfected boars by use of different sample types. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51: 547-556
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nathues C, Perler L, Bruhn S. et al. An outbreak of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in Switzerland following import of boar semen. Transbound Emerg Dis 2016; 63: 251-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Steinrigl A, Revilla-Fernández S, Schmoll F. et al. Detection of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus and Porcine Cirovirus Type 2 in blood and oral fluid collected with GenoTube swabs. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wochenschr 2016; 129: 437-443
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wills RW, Zimmerman JJ, Yoon K-J. et al. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus: routes of excretion. Vet Microbiol 1997; 57: 69-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Duan X, Nauwynck H, Pensaert M. Virus quantification and identification of cellular targets in the lungs and lymphoid tissues of pigs at different time intervals after inoculation with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). Vet Microbiol 1997; 56: 9-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Reicks DL, Muñoz-Zanzi C, Rossow K. Sampling of adult boars during early infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus for testing by polymerase chain reaction using a new blood collection technique (blood-swab method). J Swine Health Prod 2006; 14: 258-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zimmerman J, Benfield D, Dee S. et al. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (Porcine Arterivirus). In: Zimmerman J, Karriker L, Ramirez A. et al., eds. Diseases of Swine. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012: 461-486
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Grosse Beilage E, Nathues H, Grummer B. et al. Diagnostik, Prohylaxe und Therapie von Atemwegserkrankungen in Schweinebeständen. In: Grosse Beilage E, Wendt M. Hrsg. Diagnostik und Gesundheitsmanagement im Schweinebestand. Stuttgart: Ulmer; 2013: 232-233
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Biernacka K, Karbowiak P, Wróbel P. et al. Detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and influenza A virus (IAV) in oral fluid of pigs. Res Vet Sci 2016; 109: 74-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Düngelhoef A, Lösken S, grosse Beilage E. Antibody reaction in immunologically naïve replacement gilts vaccinated with an attenuated PRRSV live vaccine. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere 2014; 42 (02) 95-99
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Olsen C, Wang C, Christopher-Hennings J. et al. Probability of detecting Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection using pen-based swine oral fluid specimens as a function of within-pen prevalence. J Vet Diagn Invest 2013; 25: 328-335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977; 33: 363-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pepin B, Kittawornrat A, Liu F. et al. Comparison of specimens for detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection in boar studs. Transbound Emerg Dis 2015; 62: 295-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Prickett JR, Zimmerman JJ. The development of oral fluid-based diagnostics and applications in veterinary medicine. Anim Health Res Rev 2010; 11: 207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Prickett J, Simer R, Christopher-Hennings J. et al. Detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection in porcine oral fluid samples: a longitudinal study under experimental conditions. J Vet Diagn Invest 2008; 20: 156-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sinn LJ, Zieglowski L, Koinig H. et al. Characterization of two Austrian porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) field isolates reveals relationship to East Asian strains. Vet Res 2016; 47: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bøtner A, Strandbygaard B, Sørensen K. et al. Appearance of acute PRRS-like symptoms in sow herds after vaccination with a modified live PRRS vaccine. Vet Rec 1997; 141: 497-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Schulz T. Infektionsverlauf und Pathogenität. In: Suerbaum S, Hahn H, Burchard G-D. et al., Hrsg. Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Infektiologie. Berlin: Springer; 2016: 437-445
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rossow K, Collins J, Goyal S. et al. Pathogenesis of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection in gnotobiotic pigs. Vet Pathol 1995; 32: 361-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar