Development and evaluation of a diagnostic cytokine-release assay for Mycobacterium suricattae infection in meerkats (Suricata suricatta)

CITATION: Clarke, C., et al. 2017. Development and evaluation of a diagnostic cytokine-release assay for mycobacterium suricattae infection in meerkats (Suricata suricatta). BMC Veterinary Research, 13:2, doi:10.1186/s12917-016-0927-x.The original publication is available at http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.comBackground: Sensitive diagnostic tools are necessary for the detection of Mycobacterium suricattae infection in meerkats (Suricata suricatta) in order to more clearly understand the epidemiology of tuberculosis and the ecological consequences of the disease in this species. We therefore aimed to develop a cytokine release assay to measure antigen-specific cell-mediated immune responses of meerkats. Results: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were evaluated for the detection of interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and IFN-γ inducible protein 10 (IP-10) in meerkat plasma. An IP-10 ELISA was selected to measure the release of this cytokine in whole blood in response to Bovigam® PC-HP Stimulating Antigen, a commercial peptide pool of M. bovis antigens. Using this protocol, captive meerkats with no known M. suricattae exposure (n = 10) were tested and results were used to define a diagnostic cut off value (mean plus 2 standard deviations). This IP-10 release assay (IPRA) was then evaluated in free-living meerkats with known M. suricattae exposure, categorized as having either a low, moderate or high risk of infection with this pathogen. In each category, respectively, 24.7%, 27.3% and 82.4% of animals tested IPRA-positive. The odds of an animal testing positive was 14.0 times greater for animals with a high risk of M. suricattae infection compared to animals with a low risk. Conclusion: These results support the use of this assay as a measure of M. suricattae exposure in meerkat populations. Ongoing longitudinal studies aim to evaluate the value of the IPRA as a diagnostic test of M. suricattae infection in individual animals.http://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-016-0927-xPublisher's versio

Welfare of pigs at slaughter

The killing of pigs for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of pigs until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of pigs); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled atmosphere and mechanical. Twelve welfare consequences the pigs can be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problem, negative social behaviour, pain, fear and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 30 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures for these hazards were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified, and management was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Rhodococcus equi in horses

Rhodococcus equi (R. equi) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for horses in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR R. equi can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (10–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1 and 2 (Categories A and B; 5–10% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively), and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3, 4 and 5 (Categories C, D and E; 10–66% probability of meeting the criteria in all three categories). The animal species to be listed for AMR R. equi according to Article 8 criteria are mainly horses and other species belonging to the Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla orders.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Welfare of pigs during killing for purposes other than slaughter

Pigs at different stages of the production cycle may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other thanslaughter (where slaughter is dened as killing for human consumption) either individually (e.g.severely injured pigs) or on a large scale (e.g. unproductive animals or for disease control reasons).This opinion assessed the risks associated with the on-farm killing of pigs and included two phases: 1)handling and moving of pigs and 2) killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods weresubdivided into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, gas mixture methods andlethal injec tion. Four welfare consequences to which pigs can be exposed to during on-farm killingwere identied: pain, fear, impeded movement and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences andrelevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 28 hazards were associated with the welfareconsequences; majority of the hazards (24) are related to Phase 2 (killing). The main hazards areassociated with lack of staff skills and training, and poor-designed and constructed facilities. Staff wasidentied as an origin of all hazards, either due to lack of skills needed to perform appropriate killing ordue to fatigue. Corrective measures were identied for 25 hazards. Outcome tables linking hazards,welfare consequences, animal-based measures, hazard origins, prevent ive and corrective measureswere developed and mitigation measures proposed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli in dogs and cats, horses, swine, poultry, cattle, sheep and goats

Escherichia coli (E. coli) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for dogs and cats, horses, swine, poultry, cattle, sheep and goats in previous scientific opinions. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR E. coli can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Categories A, B, C and D; 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–33% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel was uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Section 5 (Category E, 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. coli according to Article 8 criteria include mammals, birds, reptiles and fish.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius in dogs and cats

Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (S. pseudintermedius) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for dogs and cats in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9, and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR S. pseudintermedius can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (30–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 4 (Categories A, B and D; 0–1%, 1–10% and 10–33% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3 and 5 (Categories C and E, 5–66% and 30–90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR S. pseudintermedius according to Article 8 criteria are mostly species belonging to the families of Canidae and Felidae, such as dogs and cats.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Welfare of cattle during killing for purposes other than slaughter

Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on‐farm killing of cattle. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on‐farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): antimicrobial-resistant Enterococcus faecalis in poultry

Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) was identified among the most relevant antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in the EU for poultry in a previous scientific opinion. Thus, it has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to the bacterium. The assessment has been performed following a methodology previously published. The outcome is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether AMR E. faecalis can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–66% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that the bacterium does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 4 (Categories A, B and D; 0–5%, 5–10% and 1–10% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) and the AHAW Panel is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 3 and 5 (Categories C and E, 33–66% and 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for AMR E. faecalis according to Article 8 criteria are mostly birds of the orders Galliformes and Anseriformes, but also mammals and reptiles can serve as reservoirs.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Welfare of cattle at slaughter

The killing of cattle for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of cattle until their death (including slaughtering without stunning), were grouped into three main phases: pre‐stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of cattle); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into two categories: mechanical and electrical. Twelve welfare consequences that cattle may be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problems (inability to rest or discomfort during resting), social stress, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and their relevant animal‐based measures are described. In total, 40 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 39 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Measures to prevent and correct hazards were identified, and structural and managerial measures were identified as those with a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origin of hazards, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Welfare of cattle during killing for purposes other than slaughter

Cattle of different ages may have to be killed on farm for purposes other than slaughter (the latter being defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale, e.g. for economic reasons or for disease control. The purpose of this scientific opinion is to assess the risks associated with the on‐farm killing of cattle. The processes during on‐farm killing that were assessed included handling and moving, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were grouped into mechanical and electrical methods as well as lethal injection. In total, 21 hazards compromising animal welfare were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. Staff was identified as an origin for all hazards, either due to lack of appropriate skills needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible preventive and corrective measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 19 hazards, and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Three welfare consequences of hazards to which cattle can be exposed during on‐farm killing were identified: impeded movement, pain and fear. The welfare consequences and relevant animal‐based measures related to these were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal‐based measures, origins of the hazards, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise the welfare consequences are proposed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio