Quantifying the Effect of Swab Pool Size on the Detection of Influenza A Viruses in Broiler Chickens and Its Implications for Surveillance

Overview

Journal BMC Vet Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Veterinary Medicine

Date 2018 Sep 5

PMID 30176867

Citations 6

Authors

Amos Ssematimba

Sasidhar Malladi

Peter J Bonney

Cristian Flores-Figueroa

Jeannette Munoz-Aguayo

David A Halvorson

Carol J Cardona

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Timely diagnosis of influenza A virus infections is critical for outbreak control. Due to their rapidity and other logistical advantages, lateral flow immunoassays can support influenza A virus surveillance programs and here, their field performance was proactively assessed. The performance of real-time polymerase chain reaction and two lateral flow immunoassay kits (FluDETECT and VetScan) in detecting low pathogenicity influenza A virus in oropharyngeal swab samples from experimentally inoculated broiler chickens was evaluated and at a flock-level, different testing scenarios were analyzed.

Results: For real-time polymerase chain reaction positive individual-swabs, FluDETECT respectively detected 37% and 58% for the H5 and H7 LPAIV compared to 28% and 42% for VetScan. The mean virus titer in H7 samples was higher than for H5 samples. For real-time polymerase chain reaction positive pooled swabs (containing one positive), detections by FluDETECT were significantly higher in the combined 5- and 6-swab samples compared to 11-swab samples. FluDETECT detected 58%, 55.1% and 44.9% for the H7 subtype and 28.3%, 34.0% and 24.6% for the H5 in pools of 5, 6 and 11 respectively. In our testing scenario analysis, at low flock-level LPAIV infection prevalence, testing pools of 11 detected slightly more infections while at higher prevalence, testing pools of 5 or 6 performed better. For highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, testing pools of 11 (versus 5 or 6) detected up to 5% more infections under the assumption of similar sensitivity across pools and detected less by 3% when its sensitivity was assumed to be lower.

Conclusions: Much as pooling a bigger number of swab samples increases the chances of having a positive swab included in the sample to be tested, this study's outcomes indicate that this practice may actually reduce the chances of detecting the virus since it may result into lowering the virus titer of the pooled sample. Further analysis on whether having more than one positive swab in a pooled sample would result in increased sensitivity for low pathogenicity avian influenza virus is needed.

Citing Articles

Effect of pooled tracheal sample testing on the probability of Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae detection.

Serafini Poeta Silva A, Mugabi R, Rotolo M, Krantz S, Hu D, Robbins R Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):10226.

PMID: 38702379 PMC: 11068755. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-60377-z.

Monitoring of aquatic birds and surveillance of avian influenza and Newcastle disease of waterfowls at the National Park of Urmia Lake.

Dehgany-Asl S, Allymehr M, Talebi A, Yosefi O, Allahyari E Vet Med Sci. 2022; 8(5):2016-2031.

PMID: 35763835 PMC: 9514460. DOI: 10.1002/vms3.867.

Effects of swab pool size and transport medium on the detection and isolation of avian influenza viruses in ostriches.

Pieterse R, Strydom C, Abolnik C BMC Vet Res. 2022; 18(1):48.

PMID: 35042528 PMC: 8764811. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-022-03150-6.

Specific Pathogen Free - A review of strategies in agriculture, aquaculture, and laboratory mammals and how they inform new recommendations for laboratory zebrafish.

Murray K, Clark T, Kebus M, Kent M Res Vet Sci. 2021; 142:78-93.

PMID: 34864461 PMC: 9120263. DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2021.11.005.

Implementation of Antibody Rapid Diagnostic Testing versus Real-Time Reverse Transcription-PCR Sample Pooling in the Screening of COVID-19: a Case of Different Testing Strategies in Africa.

Nyazika T, Kaela R, Mugoni M, Musomekwa K, Kyei-Baafour E, Chiwanda S mSphere. 2020; 5(4).

PMID: 32727861 PMC: 7392544. DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00524-20.

References

Rohm C, Horimoto T, Kawaoka Y, Suss J, Webster R . Do hemagglutinin genes of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses constitute unique phylogenetic lineages?. Virology. 1995; 209(2):664-70. DOI: 10.1006/viro.1995.1301. View

Loth L, Prijono W, Wibawa H, Usman T . Evaluation of two avian influenza type A rapid antigen tests under Indonesian field conditions. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2008; 20(5):642-4. DOI: 10.1177/104063870802000519. View

Cattoli G, Terregino C . New perspectives in avian influenza diagnosis. Zoonoses Public Health. 2008; 55(1):24-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2007.01085.x. View

Takekawa J, Hill N, Schultz A, Iverson S, Cardona C, Boyce W . Rapid diagnosis of avian influenza virus in wild birds: use of a portable rRT-PCR and freeze-dried reagents in the field. J Vis Exp. 2011; (54). PMC: 3217620. DOI: 10.3791/2829. View

Ladman B, Spackman E, Gelb Jr J . Comparison of pooling 11 or 5 oropharyngeal swabbings for detecting avian influenza virus by real-time reverse transcription-PCR in broiler chickens. Avian Dis. 2012; 56(1):227-9. DOI: 10.1637/9839-062011-ResNote.1. View

Woolcock P, Cardona C . Commercial immunoassay kits for the detection of influenza virus type A: evaluation of their use with poultry. Avian Dis. 2006; 49(4):477-81. DOI: 10.1637/7357-031605R.1. View

Spackman E, Senne D, Myers T, Bulaga L, Garber L, Perdue M . Development of a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay for type A influenza virus and the avian H5 and H7 hemagglutinin subtypes. J Clin Microbiol. 2002; 40(9):3256-60. PMC: 130722. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.40.9.3256-3260.2002. View

Kalthoff D, Bogs J, Grund C, Tauscher K, Teifke J, Starick E . Avian influenza H7N9/13 and H7N7/13: a comparative virulence study in chickens, pigeons, and ferrets. J Virol. 2014; 88(16):9153-65. PMC: 4136250. DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01241-14. View

Arnold M, Slomka M, Coward V, Mahmood S, Raleigh P, Brown I . Evaluation of the pooling of swabs for real-time PCR detection of low titre shedding of low pathogenicity avian influenza in turkeys. Epidemiol Infect. 2012; 141(6):1286-97. PMC: 9151896. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268812001811. View

10.

Shao H, Zhou X, Fan Z, Wan Z, Qian K, Perez D . Impact of a potential glycosylation site at neuraminidase amino acid 264 of influenza A/H9N2 virus. Vet Microbiol. 2016; 196:9-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.10.006. View

11.

Bos M, Nielen M, Koch G, Bouma A, de Jong M, Stegeman A . Back-calculation method shows that within-flock transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza (H7N7) virus in the Netherlands is not influenced by housing risk factors. Prev Vet Med. 2009; 88(4):278-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.12.003. View

12.

Webster R, BEAN W, Gorman O, Chambers T, Kawaoka Y . Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses. Microbiol Rev. 1992; 56(1):152-79. PMC: 372859. DOI: 10.1128/mr.56.1.152-179.1992. View

13.

Slomka M, Pavlidis T, Coward V, Voermans J, Koch G, Hanna A . Validated RealTime reverse transcriptase PCR methods for the diagnosis and pathotyping of Eurasian H7 avian influenza viruses. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2009; 3(4):151-64. PMC: 4634683. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2009.00083.x. View

14.

Das A, Spackman E, Thomas C, Swayne D, Suarez D . Detection of H5N1 high-pathogenicity avian influenza virus in meat and tracheal samples from experimentally infected chickens. Avian Dis. 2008; 52(1):40-8. DOI: 10.1637/8093-082107-Reg. View

15.

Alexander D . Avian influenza - diagnosis. Zoonoses Public Health. 2008; 55(1):16-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2007.01082.x. View

16.

Claes G, Welby S, van den Berg T, Van der Stede Y, Dewulf J, Lambrecht B . The impact of viral tropism and housing conditions on the transmission of three H5/H7 low pathogenic avian influenza viruses in chickens. Epidemiol Infect. 2013; 141(11):2428-43. PMC: 9151430. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268813000125. View

17.

Swayne D, Slemons R . Using mean infectious dose of high- and low-pathogenicity avian influenza viruses originating from wild duck and poultry as one measure of infectivity and adaptation to poultry. Avian Dis. 2008; 52(3):455-60. DOI: 10.1637/8229-012508-Reg.1. View

18.

Chua T, Ellis T, Wong C, Guan Y, Ge S, Peng G . Performance evaluation of five detection tests for avian influenza antigen with various avian samples. Avian Dis. 2007; 51(1):96-105. DOI: 10.1637/0005-2086(2007)051[0096:PEOFDT]2.0.CO;2. View

19.

Swayne D, Beck J . Experimental study to determine if low-pathogenicity and high-pathogenicity avian influenza viruses can be present in chicken breast and thigh meat following intranasal virus inoculation. Avian Dis. 2005; 49(1):81-5. DOI: 10.1637/7260-081104R. View

20.

Marche S, van den Berg T . Evaluation of rapid antigen detection kits for the diagnosis of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 infection. Avian Dis. 2010; 54(1 Suppl):650-4. DOI: 10.1637/8779-040109-ResNote.1. View