scholarly journals Estimation of the prevalence of respiratory diseases in pigs in north-eastern Poland: Survey of pulmonary lesions in pigs at a slaughterhouse

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Przyborowska-Zhalniarovich ◽  
Y Zhalniarovich ◽  
K Wasowicz
Keyword(s):  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Mycoplasma Hyopneumoniae ◽  
Respiratory Syndrome Virus ◽  
Enzootic Pneumonia ◽  
Average Value ◽  
North Eastern ◽  
Antibody Titres ◽  
Identical Number ◽  
Major Pathogens

A total of 29 520 animals, from 164 batches of pigs belonging to an identical number of herds, were involved in the study. The considered population of pigs were limited to the region of north-eastern Poland involving six voivodeships. From each herd, samples of blood were collected to evaluate the antibody titres to Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, Aujeszky’s disease virus and swine influenza virus. At an abattoir, the lung lesions of each batch were scored and the enzootic pneumonia-like lesion average value was calculated. Lesions, indicative of enzootic pneumonia, were found in 57.8% of the lungs. For all lungs, the enzootic pneumonia-like lesion average value was 1.74, ranging from 0.42 to 3.56 among the 164 batches. In the examined pig population, 57.8% were considered suffering from swine respiratory disease, the majority of the affected pigs came from the Podlaskie (21.7%) and Greater Poland (17.25%) voivodeships. In the most affected voivodeships, 88.37% and 85.16% of the farms were considered as disease-susceptible for Greater Poland and Podlaskie, respectively. The findings indicate that, in pigs in north-eastern Poland, the major pathogens causing pneumonia-like lesions are Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (68.9%) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (44%).

scholarly journals 212 Biosecurity practices associated with negative farm status for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, and swine influenza virus in farrow-to-finish pig farms

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
Julia A Calderon Diaz ◽  
Maria Rodrigues da Costa ◽  
Edgar Garcia Manzanilla
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Mycoplasma Hyopneumoniae ◽  
Respiratory Syndrome Virus ◽  
Animal Management ◽  
Pig Farms ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Biosecurity Practices ◽  
Cleaning And Disinfection

Abstract The objective of this study was to identify biosecurity practices associated negative status (-) for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (MHYO), porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSv), and swine influenza virus (SIV) in pig farms. Biosecurity practices were assessed using the Biocheck.UGentTM questionnaire in 54 Irish farrow-to-finish pig farms. For each farm, a batch of pigs was observed at slaughter and blood samples were collected from 32 randomly selected pigs per farm at exsanguination. Serology analysis was performed using IDEXX ELISA kits and farms were classified with either positive or negative status for each of the respiratory diseases. Data were analysed using univariable logistic regression in PROC GENMOD of SAS v9.4. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) and their associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Regularly cleaning materials used for disease treatment between litters (OR=8.2, CI=0.97-69.87), cleaning driving boards (OR=5.5, CI=1.07-28.20) and a maximal density of 3 pigs/m2 in the nursery were associated (P< 0.05) with an increased likelihood of MHYO(-). The feeding company meeting special hygienic requirements (OR=3.84, CI=1.14-12.95) and a strict all-in-all-out management in each finishing room (OR=3.84, CI=1.14-12.95) were associated (P< 0.05) with an increased likelihood of PRRSv(-). However, having disinfection baths between each room (OR=0.20, CI=0.06-0.68) and footbaths installed at the entrance of each building (OR=0.15, CI=0.04-0.52) were associated (P< 0.05) with decreased likelihood of PRRSv(-). Only allowing visitors’ access to the farm from a hygiene lock (OR=4.41, CI=1.04-18.71), and minimal piglet handling during lactation were associated with an increased likelihood of SIV(-) (P< 0.05). Results indicate that biosecurity practices regarding cleaning and disinfection and animal management are the most associated with a negative farm status for respiratory disease. It is possible that the biosecurity practices implemented in farms with lower likelihood for negative status were applied in a more ‘reactionary’ than ‘preventive’ manner.

scholarly journals Effect of Feed Restriction on Performance and Postprandial Nutrient Metabolism in Pigs Co-Infected with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Swine Influenza Virus

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e104605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Le Floc'h ◽  
Céline Deblanc ◽  
Roland Cariolet ◽  
Anne V. Gautier-Bouchardon ◽  
Elodie Merlot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Mycoplasma Hyopneumoniae ◽  
Feed Restriction ◽  
Nutrient Metabolism

scholarly journals Simultaneous infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome and influenza viruses abrogates clinical protection induced by live attenuated porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome vaccination

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiphany Chrun ◽  
Emmanuel Atangana Maze ◽  
Eleni Vatzia ◽  
Veronica Martini ◽  
Basu Paudyal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Influenza Viruses ◽  
H3n2 Virus ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Respiratory Syndrome Virus ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Live Virus ◽  
Clinical Protection

The porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) is responsible for significant economic losses in the pig industry worldwide. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and swine influenza virus are major viral contributors to PRDC. Vaccines are cost-effective measures for controlling PRRS, however, their efficacy in the context of co-infections has been poorly investigated. In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of PRRSV-2 and swine influenza H3N2 virus co-infection on the efficacy of PRRSV modified live virus (MLV) vaccination, which is widely used in the field. Following simultaneous challenge with contemporary PRRSV-2 and H3N2 field isolates, we found that the protective effect of PRRS MLV vaccination on clinical disease and pathology was abrogated, although viral load was unaffected and antibody responses were enhanced. In contrast, co-infection in non-immunized animals reduced PRRSV-2 viremia and H3N2 virus load in the upper respiratory tract and potentiated T cell responses against both PRRSV-2 and H3N2 in the lung. Further analysis suggested that an upregulation of inhibitory cytokines gene expression in the lungs of vaccinated pigs may have influenced responses to H3N2 and PRRSV-2. These findings provide important insights into the effect of viral co-infections on PRRS vaccine efficacy that may help identity more effective vaccination strategies against PRDC in the field.

scholarly journals Cellular Innate Immunity against PRRSV and Swine Influenza Viruses

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa Crisci ◽  
Lorenzo Fraile ◽  
Maria Montoya
Keyword(s):  
Innate Immunity ◽  
T Cells ◽  
Natural Killer ◽  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Γδ T Cells ◽  
Influenza Viruses ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Respiratory Syndrome Virus

Porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) is a polymicrobial syndrome that results from a combination of infectious agents, such as environmental stressors, population size, management strategies, age, and genetics. PRDC results in reduced performance as well as increased mortality rates and production costs in the pig industry worldwide. This review focuses on the interactions of two enveloped RNA viruses—porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and swine influenza virus (SwIV)—as major etiological agents that contribute to PRDC within the porcine cellular innate immunity during infection. The innate immune system of the porcine lung includes alveolar and parenchymal/interstitial macrophages, neutrophils (PMN), conventional dendritic cells (DC) and plasmacytoid DC, natural killer cells, and γδ T cells, thus the in vitro and in vivo interactions between those cells and PRRSV and SwIV are reviewed. Likewise, the few studies regarding PRRSV-SwIV co-infection are illustrated together with the different modulation mechanisms that are induced by the two viruses. Alterations in responses by natural killer (NK), PMN, or γδ T cells have not received much attention within the scientific community as their counterpart antigen-presenting cells and there are numerous gaps in the knowledge regarding the role of those cells in both infections. This review will help in paving the way for future directions in PRRSV and SwIV research and enhancing the understanding of the innate mechanisms that are involved during infection with these viruses.

scholarly journals Co-Infection of Swine with Porcine Circovirus Type 2 and Other Swine Viruses

Viruses ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Ouyang ◽  
Xinwei Zhang ◽  
Xiaohua Liu ◽  
Linzhu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Classical Swine Fever ◽  
Porcine Circovirus Type ◽  
Porcine Circovirus ◽  
Respiratory Syndrome Virus ◽  
Host Immune System ◽  
Current State ◽  
The World

Porcine circovirus 2 (PCV2) is the etiological agent that causes porcine circovirus diseases and porcine circovirus-associated diseases (PCVD/PCVAD), which are present in every major swine-producing country in the world. PCV2 infections may downregulate the host immune system and enhance the infection and replication of other pathogens. However, the exact mechanisms of PCVD/PCVAD are currently unknown. To date, many studies have reported that several cofactors, such as other swine viruses or bacteria, vaccination failure, and stress or crowding, in combination with PCV2, lead to PCVD/PCVAD. Among these cofactors, co-infection of PCV2 with other viruses, such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, porcine parvovirus, swine influenza virus and classical swine fever virus have been widely studied for decades. In this review, we focus on the current state of knowledge regarding swine co-infection with different PCV2 genotypes or strains, as well as with PCV2 and other swine viruses.

scholarly journals Optimization of a Sampling System for Recovery and Detection of Airborne Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus and Swine Influenza Virus

2006 ◽  
Vol 72 (7) ◽  
pp. 4811-4818 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Hermann ◽  
S. J. Hoff ◽  
K. J. Yoon ◽  
A. C. Burkhardt ◽  
R. B. Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Ethylene Glycol ◽  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Air Sampling ◽  
Sampling Time ◽  
Respiratory Syndrome Virus ◽  
Virus Infectivity ◽  
Collection Medium ◽  
Sampling Systems

ABSTRACT The objective of this research was to optimize sampling parameters for increased recovery and detection of airborne porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and swine influenza virus (SIV). Collection media containing antifoams, activated carbons, protectants, and ethylene glycol were evaluated for direct effects on factors impacting the detection of PRRSV and SIV, including virus infectivity, viability of continuous cell lines used for the isolation of these viruses, and performance of reverse transcriptase PCR assays. The results showed that specific compounds influenced the likelihood of detecting PRRSV and SIV in collection medium. A subsequent study evaluated the effects of collection medium, impinger model, and sampling time on the recovery of aerosolized PRRSV using a method for making direct comparisons of up to six treatments simultaneously. The results demonstrated that various components in air-sampling systems, including collection medium, impinger model, and sampling time, independently influenced the recovery and detection of PRRSV and/or SIV. Interestingly, it was demonstrated that a 20% solution of ethylene glycol collected the greatest quantity of aerosolized PRRSV, which suggests the possibility of sampling at temperatures below freezing. Based on the results of these experiments, it is recommended that air-sampling systems be optimized for the target pathogen(s) and that recovery/detection results should be interpreted in the context of the actual performance of the system.

Polymicrobial respiratory disease in pigs

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Opriessnig ◽  
L. G. Giménez-Lirola ◽  
P. G. Halbur
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Disease ◽  
Pasteurella Multocida ◽  
Bacterial Pathogens ◽  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
The Body ◽  
Detection Methods ◽  
Porcine Circovirus ◽  
Respiratory Syndrome Virus ◽  
Respiratory Pathogens

AbstractRespiratory disease in pigs is common in modern pork production worldwide and is often referred to as porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC). PRDC is polymicrobial in nature, and results from infection with various combinations of primary and secondary respiratory pathogens. As a true multifactorial disease, environmental conditions, population size, management strategies and pig-specific factors such as age and genetics also play critical roles in the outcome of PRDC. While non-infectious factors are important in the initiation and outcome of cases of PRDC, the focus of this review is on infectious factors only. There are a variety of viral and bacterial pathogens commonly associated with PRDC including porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), swine influenza virus (SIV), porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2),Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae(MHYO) andPasteurella multocida(PMULT). The pathogenesis of viral respiratory disease is typically associated with destruction of the mucocilliary apparatus and with interference and decrease of the function of pulmonary alveolar and intravascular macrophages. Bacterial pathogens often contribute to PRDC by activation of inflammation via enhanced cytokine responses. With recent advancements in pathogen detection methods, the importance of polymicrobial disease has become more evident, and identification of interactions of pathogens and their mechanisms of disease potentiation has become a topic of great interest. For example, combined infection of pigs with typically low pathogenic organisms like PCV2 and MHYO results in severe respiratory disease. Although the body of knowledge has advanced substantially in the last 15 years, much more needs to be learned about the pathogenesis and best practices for control of swine respiratory disease outbreaks caused by concurrent infection of two or more pathogens. This review discusses the latest findings on polymicrobial respiratory disease in pigs.

scholarly journals Experimental PCEP-Adjuvanted Swine Influenza H1N1 Vaccine Induced Strong Immune Responses but Did Not Protect Piglets against Heterologous H3N2 Virus Challenge

Vaccines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Royford Bundi Magiri ◽  
Ken John Lai ◽  
George Kiremu Mutwiri ◽  
Heather Lynne Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Immune Responses ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Swine Influenza Virus ◽  
Swine Influenza ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
H3n2 Virus ◽  
H1n1 Vaccine ◽  
Antibody Titres ◽  
Lymph Node Cells

Vaccination is the most efficient method of protection against influenza infections. However, the rapidly mutating viruses and development of new strains make it necessary to develop new influenza vaccines annually. Hence, vaccines that stimulate cross-protection against multiple influenza subtypes are highly sought. Recent evidence suggests that adjuvants such as PCEP that promote Th1-type T cell and Th2-type T cell immune responses and broad-spectrum immune responses may confer cross-protection against heterologous influenza strains. In this study, we evaluated whether the immunogenic and protective potential of PCEP-adjuvanted inactivated swine influenza virus H1N1 vaccine can protect pigs immunized against live H3N2 virus. Piglets were vaccinated via the intradermal route with PCEP-adjuvanted inactivated swine influenza virus (SIV) H1N1 vaccine, boosted at day 21 with the same vaccines then challenged with infectious SIV H3N2 virus at day 35 via the tracheobronchial route. The pigs showed significant anti-H1N1 SIV specific antibody titres and H1N1 SIV neutralizing antibody titres, and these serum titres remained after the challenge with the H3N2 virus. In contrast, vaccination with anti-H1N1 SIV did not trigger anti-H3N2 SIV antibody titres or neutralizing antibody titres and these titres remained low until pigs were challenged with H3N2 SIV. At necropsy (six days after challenge), we collected prescapular lymph nodes and tracheobronchial draining the vaccination sites and challenge site, respectively. ELISPOTs from lymph node cells restimulated ex vivo with inactivated SIV H1N1 showed significant production of IFN-γ in the tracheobronchial cells, but not the prescapular lymph nodes. In contrast, lymph node cells restimulated ex vivo with inactivated SIV H1N1 showed significantly higher IL-13 and IL-17A in the prescapular lymph nodes draining the vaccination sites relative to unchallenged animals. Lung lesion scores show that intradermal vaccination with H1N1 SIV plus PCEP did not prevent lesions when the animals were challenged with H3N2. These results confirm previous findings that PCEP is effective as a vaccine adjuvant in that it induces strong immune responses and protects against homologous swine influenza H1N1 virus, but the experimental H1N1 vaccine failed to cross-protect against heterologous H3N2 virus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document