Detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRS) genome fragments and anti-- bodies in chewing ropes allow -monitoring of PRRS in pig farms

Abstract

Saliva samples from chewing ropes are a reliable diagnostic of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) infections. The aim of this study was to test whether saliva samples taken with saliva swabs (cotton swabs and GenoTube Livestock) or with chewing ropes are suitable for monitoring PRRSV in unsuspicious farms, this means to detect a prevalence of 20% infected animals with a 95% probability. Saliva samples were collected from 12-16 pens in five pig farms by using a chewing rope for collective samples and by individual saliva swaps from five randomly selected animals per pen. A total of 291 animals from 58 pens in four study farms and 60 animals from 12 pens in one control farm were collected. The samples were taken from all age categories. According to the current monitoring system the analysis of five individual serum samples from the same pens served as the reference method for the relative sensitivity of the saliva samples. Serum and chewing rope samples were tested by ELISA for antibodies. Two different systems were used for the serum samples. Chewing ropes, saliva swabs (GenoTube Livestock) and serum samples were examined for virus genomes using a nested reverse-transcriptase PCR and a commercial real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR kit. Cohen's Kappa was used as a measure of agreement. PRRSV antibodies were detected in the chewing ropes of 44 pens and in the serum samples of only 34 pens. Viral RNA was found in 13 (chewing ropes), respectively 16 pens (serum samples). Saliva swabs (GenoTube Livestock) showed a lower relative sensitivity of 20.00% compared to serum samples. The agreement of the two serum analysis was very good for the ELISAs (κ = 0,911), and moderate for the PCR (κ = 0,706). The comparison of the chewing rope method with the analysis of the serum samples advocates this method as a suitable supplementary monitoring tool in PRRSV unsuspicious pig farms. Easy handling and lower examination costs of the chewing rope method allow higher testing frequency and would therefore improve the monitoring system. However, they are not an alternative to serum samples. Sampling with saliva swabs is unsuitable.