Cavalli-Sforza Guitart, Deepa

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Facultat de Veterinària

English

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB

• Influenza RT-qPCR• Agreement between tests• Distribution of RT-qPCR positive Cycle threshold (Ct) valuesA. Cross-sectional studyB. Longitudinal study: during 8 weeks in two a) positive IAVswine herds b) no current respiratory outbreak and c) novaccination for IAV.C. Laboratory analysis: RNA extraction → RT-qPCRNS and UW NS and OFHerd Age of pigs (weeks)IAV detection by RT-qPCRPigs SowsNS (%) OF (%) UW (%)A11 2/10 (20) NC 2/10 (20)3 11/20 (55) NC 5/20 (25)5 5/20 (25) 5/20 (25) NC8 1/10 (10) 1/10 (10) NCTotal A 19/60 (32) 6/30 (20) 7/30 (23)B1 0/10 (0) NC 1/10 (10)3 8/9 (90) NC 4/9 (44)5 4/12 (33) 4/12 (33) NC8 3/12 (25) 2/12 (17) NCTotal B 15/43(35) 6/24 (25) 5/19 (26)Total A  34/103 (33) 12/54 (22) 12/49 (24)DETECTION OF SWINE INFLUENZA A VIRUS IN ORAL FLUIDS AND UDDER SKIN WIPESDeepa Cavalli-Sforza GuitartFaculty of Veterinary Medicine – Bachelor's Thesis – June 2022NC: Not collected• Compare IAV detection rates at the herd and pen level• Between Nasal swabs (NS) and UW in suckling piglets• Between NS and OF in weaned piglets• By quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR)• In endemically infected farms with low disease prevalence1 3 5 8Figure 3. A group ofweaned piglets chewinga   pen-based cottonropeFigure 2. Wiping theudder skin of a lactatingsowFigure 4. Boxplots of RT-qPCR Ct values of NS and OF. The median Ct value of NS (31.56) is lower than the median Ct value of OF(34.24).Figure 3. Boxplots of IAV RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values of NS and UW from suckling piglets. The median Ct value of NS (33.19) is lower than the median Ct value of UW (37.80).Table 1. RT-qPCR detection of IAV by sample type, age of pigs and herd.Table 2. Cohen’s Kappa coefficient of paired NS and UW, and paired NS and OF. In both cases the level of agreement is slightWeaning• Monitoring Influenza A virus (IAV) in swine is relevant fromthree perspectives: animal health, economic impact and publichealth 1• Detection using individual samples is challenging• Collection of group samples is gaining popularity• Oral fluids (OF) in weaned pigs 2• Sow udder skin wipes (UW) in suckling piglets 3IntroductionObjectivesFigure 1.Swine farmMaterials and MethodsResultsNS UW K= 0.164, CI –0.096-0.423; SE= 0.132OF K= 0.116; CI –0.169-0.41) UW in suckling piglets and OF in weaned pigs can be afeasible alternatives for IAV screening• Similar IAV detection rates at the herd level with NS• Collection is easy, timesaving, less stressful and non-invasive2) Detection of IAV is a key tool to help designing strategic andrisk-based preventive and control measuresConclusions1) Taubenberger, J. K., & Kash, J. C. (2010). Influenza Virus Evolution, Host Adaptation, and Pandemic Formation. Cell Host & Microbe, 7(6), 440–451.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2010.05.0092) Gerber, P. F., Dawson, L., Strugnell, B., Burgess, R., Brown, H., & Opriessnig, T. (2016). Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance infarmed UK pigs. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 3(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.513) Garrido-Mantilla, J., Alvarez, J., Culhane, M., Nirmala, J., Cano, J. P., & Torremorell, M. (2019). Comparison of individual, group and environmental samplingstrategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs. BMC Veterinary Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-1805-0References

Detection of swine influenza a virus in oral fluids and udder skin wipes

https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tfg/2022/264393/TFG_dcavallisorzaguitar_poster.pdf

Detection of swine influenza a virus in oral fluids and udder skin wipes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB