Effective surveillance for early classical swine fever virus detection will utilize both virus and antibody detection capabilities

•Effective CSFV detection will require a combination of virus- and antibody-based detection methods.•CSFV RNA was detected in oral fluid from infected pigs by rRT-PCR before the appearance of clinical signs.•Differences in diagnostic sensitivity were observed among the rRT-PCRs and assay performance...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Veterinary microbiology 2018-03, Vol.216, p.72-78
Main Authors: Panyasing, Yaowalak, Kedkovid, Roongtham, Thanawongnuwech, Roongroje, Kittawornrat, Apisit, Ji, Ju, Giménez-Lirola, Luis, Zimmerman, Jeffrey
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animal diseases
Animals
Antibodies, Viral - immunology
Asia, Southeastern - epidemiology
Assaying
Body Fluids - virology
Classical Swine Fever - diagnosis
Classical Swine Fever - epidemiology
Classical Swine Fever - immunology
Classical Swine Fever - virology
Classical swine fever virus
Classical swine fever virus - genetics
Classical swine fever virus - immunology
Classical swine fever virus - isolation & purification
ELISA
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - methods
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay - veterinary
Epidemiological Monitoring - veterinary
Fever
Hog cholera
Immunoassay
Immunoassays
Immunoglobulins
Inoculation
Livestock
Mouth - virology
Neutralization
Oral fluid
Polymerase chain reaction
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic - veterinary
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods
Reverse transcription
Ribonucleic acid
RNA
RT-PCR
Sensitivity and Specificity
Swine
Swine - virology
Swine flu
Vaccination
Virulence
Virus isolation
Virus neutralization
Viruses
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•Effective CSFV detection will require a combination of virus- and antibody-based detection methods.•CSFV RNA was detected in oral fluid from infected pigs by rRT-PCR before the appearance of clinical signs.•Differences in diagnostic sensitivity were observed among the rRT-PCRs and assay performance was also affected by CSFV strain. Early recognition and rapid elimination of infected animals is key to controlling incursions of classical swine fever virus (CSFV). In this study, the diagnostic characteristics of 10 CSFV assays were evaluated using individual serum (n = 601) and/or oral fluid (n = 1417) samples collected from −14 to 28 days post inoculation (DPI). Serum samples were assayed by virus isolation (VI), 2 commercial antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), virus neutralization (VN), and 3 antibody ELISAs. Both serum and oral fluid samples were tested with 3 commercial real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assays. One or more serum samples was positive by VI from DPIs 3 to 21 and by antigen-capture ELISAs from DPIs 6 to 17. VN-positive serum samples were observed at DPIs ≥ 7 and by antibody ELISAs at DPIs ≥ 10. CSFV RNA was detected in serum samples from DPIs 2 to 28 and in oral fluid samples from DPIs 4 to 28. Significant differences in assay performance were detected, but most importantly, no single combination of sample and assay was able to dependably identify CSFV-inoculated pigs throughout the 4-week course of the study. The results show that effective surveillance for CSFV, especially low virulence strains, will require the use of PCR-based assays for the detection of early infections (
ISSN:0378-1135
1873-2542
DOI:10.1016/j.vetmic.2018.01.020