In-silico Characterization of the Relationship Between the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus Prevalence at the Piglet and Litter Levels in a Farrowing Room

Overview

Journal Porcine Health Manag

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2023 Apr 13

PMID 37055812

Authors

Onyekachukwu H Osemeke

Eduardo de Freitas Costa

Vinicius Weide

Swaminathan Jayaraman

Gustavo S Silva

Daniel C L Linhares

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Family oral fluids (FOF) sampling has been described as a sampling technique where a rope is exposed to sows and respective suckling litters and thereafter wrung to obtain fluids. PCR-based testing of FOF reveals presence of PRRS virus RNA only at the litter level, as opposed to conventional individual-animal-based sampling methods that demonstrate PRRSV RNA at the piglet level. The relationship between the PRRSV prevalence at the individual piglet level and at the litter level in a farrowing room has not been previously characterized. Using Monte Carlo simulations and data from a previous study, the relationship between the proportion of PRRSV-positive (viremic) pigs in the farrowing room, the proportion of litters in the farrowing room with at least one viremic pig, and the likely proportion of litters to be positive by a FOF RT-rtPCR test in a farrowing room was characterized, taking into account the spatial distribution (homogeneity) of viremic pigs within farrowing rooms.

Results: There was a linear relationship between piglet-level- and litter-level prevalence, where the latter was always larger than the former. When the piglet-level prevalence was 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 50%, the true-litter level prevalence was 5.36%, 8.93%, 14.29%, 23.21%, and 53.57%, respectively. The corresponding apparent-litter prevalence by FOF was 2.06%, 6.48%, 11.25%, 21.60%, and 51.56%, respectively.

Conclusion: This study provides matching prevalence estimates to help guide sample size calculations. It also provides a framework to estimate the likely proportion of viremic pigs, given the PRRSV RT-rtPCR positivity rate of FOF samples submitted from a farrowing room.

References

Silva G, Schwartz M, Morrison R, Linhares D . Monitoring breeding herd production data to detect PRRSV outbreaks. Prev Vet Med. 2017; 148:89-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.10.012. View

Almeida M, Zhang M, Lopez W, Vilalta C, Sanhueza J, Corzo C . A comparison of three sampling approaches for detecting PRRSV in suckling piglets. Prev Vet Med. 2021; 194:105427. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105427. View

Cho J, Deen J, Dee S . Influence of isolate pathogenicity on the aerosol transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Can J Vet Res. 2006; 71(1):23-7. PMC: 1635995. View

Nauta M . Microbiological risk assessment models for partitioning and mixing during food handling. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005; 100(1-3):311-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.10.027. View

Li Q, Noel-MacDonnell J, Koestler D, Goode E, Fridley B . Subject level clustering using a negative binomial model for small transcriptomic studies. BMC Bioinformatics. 2018; 19(1):474. PMC: 6292049. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-018-2556-9. View

Pileri E, Mateu E . Review on the transmission porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus between pigs and farms and impact on vaccination. Vet Res. 2016; 47(1):108. PMC: 5086057. DOI: 10.1186/s13567-016-0391-4. View

Trevisan G, Linhares L, Crim B, Dubey P, Schwartz K, Burrough E . Macroepidemiological aspects of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus detection by major United States veterinary diagnostic laboratories over time, age group, and specimen. PLoS One. 2019; 14(10):e0223544. PMC: 6795434. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223544. View

Almeida M, Rotto H, Schneider P, Robb C, Zimmerman J, Holtkamp D . Collecting oral fluid samples from due-to-wean litters. Prev Vet Med. 2019; 174:104810. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104810. View

Arruda A, Friendship R, Carpenter J, Greer A, Poljak Z . Evaluation of Control Strategies for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) in Swine Breeding Herds Using a Discrete Event Agent-Based Model. PLoS One. 2016; 11(11):e0166596. PMC: 5119772. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166596. View

10.

Arruda A, Tousignant S, Sanhueza J, Vilalta C, Poljak Z, Torremorell M . Aerosol Detection and Transmission of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV): What Is the Evidence, and What Are the Knowledge Gaps?. Viruses. 2019; 11(8). PMC: 6723176. DOI: 10.3390/v11080712. View

11.

Jeong J, Aly S, Cano J, Polson D, Kass P, Perez A . Stochastic model of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus control strategies on a swine farm in the United States. Am J Vet Res. 2014; 75(3):260-7. DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.75.3.260. View

12.

Amirpour Haredasht S, Polson D, Main R, Lee K, Holtkamp D, Martinez-Lopez B . Modeling the spatio-temporal dynamics of porcine reproductive & respiratory syndrome cases at farm level using geographical distance and pig trade network matrices. BMC Vet Res. 2017; 13(1):163. PMC: 5463409. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1076-6. View

13.

Nodelijk G, de Jong M, van Nes A, Vernooy J, van Leengoed L, Pol J . Introduction, persistence and fade-out of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in a Dutch breeding herd: a mathematical analysis. Epidemiol Infect. 2000; 124(1):173-82. PMC: 2810898. DOI: 10.1017/s0950268899003246. View

14.

Almeida M, Zhang M, Zimmerman J, Holtkamp D, Linhares D . Finding PRRSV in sow herds: Family oral fluids vs. serum samples from due-to-wean pigs. Prev Vet Med. 2021; 193:105397. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105397. View

15.

Rotolo M, Sun Y, Wang C, Gimenez-Lirola L, Baum D, Gauger P . Sampling guidelines for oral fluid-based surveys of group-housed animals. Vet Microbiol. 2017; 209:20-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.02.004. View

16.

Kostoulas P, Nielsen S, Browne W, Leontides L . Sample size estimation to substantiate freedom from disease for clustered binary data with a specific risk profile. Epidemiol Infect. 2012; 141(6):1318-27. PMC: 9151856. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268812001938. View

17.

Fosgate G . Practical sample size calculations for surveillance and diagnostic investigations. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2009; 21(1):3-14. DOI: 10.1177/104063870902100102. View

18.

Cameron A, Meyer A, Faverjon C, MacKenzie C . Quantification of the sensitivity of early detection surveillance. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2020; 67(6):2532-2543. PMC: 7267659. DOI: 10.1111/tbed.13598. View

19.

Holtkamp D, Polson D, Torremorell M, Morrison B, Classen D, Becton L . [Terminology for classifying the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) status of swine herds]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg G Grosstiere Nutztiere. 2011; 39(2):101-12. View

20.

Ogno G, Rodriguez-Gomez I, Canelli E, Ruedas-Torres I, Alvarez B, Dominguez J . Impact of PRRSV strains of different in vivo virulence on the macrophage population of the thymus. Vet Microbiol. 2019; 232:137-145. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2019.04.016. View