TY - JOUR

T1 - Effect of pooling family oral fluids on the probability of PRRSV RNA detection by RT-rtPCR

AU - Osemeke, Onyekachukwu H.

AU - de Freitas Costa, Eduardo

AU - Almeida, Marcelo N.

AU - Trevisan, Giovani

AU - Ghosh, Arka P.

AU - Silva, Gustavo S.

AU - Linhares, Daniel C.L.

PY - 2022/9

Y1 - 2022/9

N2 - Family oral fluids (FOFs) are an aggregate sample type shown to be a cost-efficient and convenient option for determining the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) status of weaning age pigs. This study investigates the effect of pooling PRRSV-positive FOF samples with PRRSV-negative FOF samples at different levels (1/3, 1/5, 1/10, 1/20) on the probability of PRRSV RNA detection by reverse-transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR). Mathematical models were built to assess how much the probability of RT-rtPCR PRRSV detection changed with increasing proportion of PRRSV-positive samples present within pools and how partially sampling a farrowing room influenced the probability of RT-rtPCR detection of PRRSV RNA in pooled samples at different prevalence scenarios. A general example of a guideline for FOF-based sampling under different prevalence scenarios to detect PRRSV RNA by RT-rtPCR with at least 95 % certainty is presented. At the sample level, the probability of detecting PRRSV RNA by RT-rtPCR decreased from 100 % to 87 %, 68 %, and 26 % when diluting up to 1/20 for PRRSV positive FOF having an initial Cycle threshold (Ct) below 34, between 34 and 36, or above 36, respectively. When PRRSV prevalence is near-zero (1 or 2 litters positive out of 56), the most cost-efficient farrowing room sampling strategy to detect PRRSV RNA with at least 95 % certainty was pooling FOF samples up to 1/10; at higher prevalence (≥ 3 of 56 litters positive), the most cost-efficient strategy was submitting samples in pools of 20. Subsampling a farrowing room for FOF pools was also demonstrated to be a valuable cost-saving strategy. Overall, based on the conditions of this study, pooling FOFs up to 1/20 is a valid option in situations of cost constraint and regardless of pooling level chosen, capturing as many litters as possible improves the probability of PRRSV detection.

AB - Family oral fluids (FOFs) are an aggregate sample type shown to be a cost-efficient and convenient option for determining the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) status of weaning age pigs. This study investigates the effect of pooling PRRSV-positive FOF samples with PRRSV-negative FOF samples at different levels (1/3, 1/5, 1/10, 1/20) on the probability of PRRSV RNA detection by reverse-transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR). Mathematical models were built to assess how much the probability of RT-rtPCR PRRSV detection changed with increasing proportion of PRRSV-positive samples present within pools and how partially sampling a farrowing room influenced the probability of RT-rtPCR detection of PRRSV RNA in pooled samples at different prevalence scenarios. A general example of a guideline for FOF-based sampling under different prevalence scenarios to detect PRRSV RNA by RT-rtPCR with at least 95 % certainty is presented. At the sample level, the probability of detecting PRRSV RNA by RT-rtPCR decreased from 100 % to 87 %, 68 %, and 26 % when diluting up to 1/20 for PRRSV positive FOF having an initial Cycle threshold (Ct) below 34, between 34 and 36, or above 36, respectively. When PRRSV prevalence is near-zero (1 or 2 litters positive out of 56), the most cost-efficient farrowing room sampling strategy to detect PRRSV RNA with at least 95 % certainty was pooling FOF samples up to 1/10; at higher prevalence (≥ 3 of 56 litters positive), the most cost-efficient strategy was submitting samples in pools of 20. Subsampling a farrowing room for FOF pools was also demonstrated to be a valuable cost-saving strategy. Overall, based on the conditions of this study, pooling FOFs up to 1/20 is a valid option in situations of cost constraint and regardless of pooling level chosen, capturing as many litters as possible improves the probability of PRRSV detection.

KW - Family oral fluid (FOF)

KW - Monitoring

KW - Pooling

KW - PRRSV

KW - Swine

U2 - 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105701

DO - 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105701

M3 - Article

C2 - 35816833

AN - SCOPUS:85133928327

SN - 0167-5877

VL - 206

JO - Preventive Veterinary Medicine

JF - Preventive Veterinary Medicine

M1 - 105701

ER -