Performance of ELISAs for detection of antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in serum of pigs after PRRSV type 2 live vaccination and challenge

Development and application of a blocking ELISA based on a N protein monoclonal antibody for the antibody detection against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus 2

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is one of the most widespread illnesses in the world's swine business. To detect the antibodies against PRRSV-2, a blocking enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (B-ELISA) was developed, utilizing a PRRSV-2 N protein monoclonal antibody as the detection antibody. A checkerboard titration test was used to determine the optimal detection antibody dilution, tested pig serum dilution and purified PRRSV coated antigen concentration. After analyzing 174 negative pig sera and 451 positive pig sera, a cutoff value of 40 % was selected to distinguish between positive and negative sera using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The specificity and sensitivity of the assay were evaluated to equal 99.8 % and 96 %, respectively. The method had no cross-reaction with PCV2, PRV, PPV, CSFV, PEDV, TGEV, and PRRSV-1 serum antibodies, and the coefficients of variation of intra-batch and inter-batch repeatability experiments were both <10 %. A total of 215 clinical serum samples were tested, and the relative coincidence rate with commercial ELISA kit was 99.06 %, and the kappa value was 0.989, indicating that these two detection results exhibited high consistency. Overall, the B-ELISA should serve as an ideal method for large-scale serological investigation of PRRSV-2 antibodies in domestic pigs.

Development of a one-step reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) caused by PRRS virus (PRRSV) is an important disease that severely affects the swine industry and, therefore, warrants rapid and accurate diagnosis for its control. Despite the progress in developing diagnostic tools, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods such as reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) to diagnose PRRSV infection, its diagnosis at the genetic level is challenging because of its high genetic variability. Nevertheless, RT-qPCR is the easiest and fastest method for diagnosing PRRSV. Therefore, this study aimed to develop an RT-qPCR assay for rapid and accurate diagnosis of PRRSV by encompassing all publicly available PRRSV sequences. The developed assay using highly specific primers and probes could detect up to 10 copies of PRRSV-1 and -2 subtypes. Furthermore, a comparison of the performance of the developed assay with those of two commercial kits widely used in South Korea demonstrated the higher efficiency of the developed assay in detecting PRRSV infections in field samples. For PRRSV-1 detection, the developed assay showed a diagnostic agreement of 97.7% with the results of ORF5 sequencing, while for commercial kits, it showed 95.3% and 72.1% agreement. For PRRSV-2, the developed assay showed a diagnostic agreement of 97.7%, whereas the commercial kits showed 93% and 90.7% agreement. In conclusion, we developed an assay with higher accuracy than those of the tested commercial kits, which will contribute markedly to global PRRSV control.

Follow-Up of PRRSv-Vaccinated Piglets Born from PRRSv-Vaccinated, ELISA-Seropositive and ELISA-Seronegative Sows

Vaccination against the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSv) is widely used to prevent production losses in the swine industry. In this study, piglets born from both PRRSv-vaccinated ELISA-seropositive sows (E+ piglets) and PRRSv-vaccinated ELISA-seronegative sows (E- piglets) were followed-up pre-vaccination, 3 weeks post-vaccination (wpv) and 8 wpv in two Belgian farrow-to-finish herds. The aim of the study was to analyze the presence of PRRSv-specific maternally-derived antibodies (MDAs) and the PRRSv vaccine response in both groups of piglets. The E- piglets lacked the presence of PRRSv-specific MDAs (0% seropositive), while these were present in the E+ piglets (97% seropositive). Due to this, the E- piglets showed a strong initial vaccine response (72-80% seroconversion) and vaccine viremia (65-75% PCR positive) at 3 wpv. In contrast, the E+ piglets showed only limited initial vaccine responses (25-61% with increased ELISA values) and vaccine viremia (30-31% PCR positive) at 3 wpv. By 8 wpv, the proportion of seropositive E- piglets (78-100%) and seropositive E+ piglets (55-90%) increased in both herds. However, a difference in vaccine viremia duration was observed between both herds at 8 wpv, with a decrease in the proportion of PCR positive piglets in herd 1 (E-: 47%; E+: 25%) and an increase in the proportion of PCR positive piglets in herd 2 (E-: 85%; E+: 92%). This study identified clear differences in the presence of PRRSv-specific maternally-derived antibodies and PRRSv vaccine responses between E- and E+ piglets. Further research is warranted to elicit the biological relevance of these observed differences.

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSv): A Cross-Sectional Study on ELISA Seronegative, Multivaccinated Sows

Vaccination against Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus (PRRSv) is widely used to control clinical disease, but the effectiveness appears in some cases to be suboptimal. Field reports have stated the presence of routinely PRRSv-vaccinated but ELISA seronegative sows: the ELISA non-responders. The real extent of this phenomenon (prevalence–origin–consequences) was not yet investigated. In this study, the prevalence of ELISA non-responders was assessed by measuring PRRSv-specific antibodies in 1400 sows, originating from 70 PRRSv-vaccinating sow herds, using IDEXX ELISA (ELISA 1) and CIVTEST E/S ELISA (ELISA 2). Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) were quantified in a virus neutralization assay. Univariable logistic regression was used to identify herd risk factors for the presence of ELISA non-responders. The global prevalence of non-responders varied from 3.5% (ELISA 1) to 4.1% (ELISA 2), the herd-level prevalence was 40% and the within-herd prevalence ranged from 5% to 20% (ELISA 1) and from 5% to 30% (ELISA 2). The ELISA non-responders had significantly lower NAbs than the ELISA responders. Herds using the combination of one modified live vaccine and one killed vaccine had a significantly reduced risk of having ELISA non-responders. A first assessment of the prevalence and possible consequences of ELISA non-responders has been provided by this study. The clinical importance, origin and underlying immunological mechanisms warrant further research.

An intercomparison study of ELISAs for the detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus – evaluating six conditionally dependent tests

Latent class analysis is a widely used statistical method for evaluating diagnostic tests without any gold standard. It requires the results of at least two tests applied to the same individuals. Based on the resulting response patterns, the method estimates the test accuracy and the unknown disease status for all individuals in the sample. An important assumption is the conditional independence of the tests. If tests with the same biological principle are used, the assumption is not fulfilled, which may lead to biased results. In a recent publication, we developed a method that considers the dependencies in the latent class model and estimates all parameters using frequentist methods. Here, we evaluate the practicability of the method by applying it to the results of six ELISA tests for antibodies against the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus in pigs that generally follow the same biological principle. First, we present different methods of identifying suitable starting values for the algorithm and apply these to the dataset and a vaccinated subgroup. We present the calculated values of the test accuracies, the estimated proportion of antibody-positive animals and the dependency structure for both datasets. Different starting values led to matching results for the entire dataset. For the vaccinated subgroup, the results were more dependent on the selected starting values. All six ELISA tests are well suited to detect antibodies against PRRS virus, whereas none of the tests had the best values for sensitivity and specificity simultaneously. The results thus show that the method used is able to determine the parameter values of conditionally dependent tests with suitable starting values. The choice of test should be based on the general fit-for-purpose concept and the population under study.

Establishment of a peptide-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detecting antibodies against PRRSV M protein

BACKGROUND

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is one of the most economically devastating diseases affecting the swine industry globally. Evaluation of antibody responses and neutralizing antibody titers is the most effective method for vaccine evaluation. In this study, the B cell line epitopes of PRRSV M protein were predicted, and two peptide ELISA assays were established (M-A110-129 ELISA, M-A148-174 ELISA) to detect antibodies against PRRSV M protein. Field serum samples collected from pig farms were used to validate the peptide ELISA and compare it with an indirect immunofluorescence assay.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of M-A110-129 ELISA and M-A148-174 ELISA were (111/125) 88.80%, (69/70) 98.57% and (122/125) 97.60%, (70/70) 100%, relative to indirect immunofluorescence assay. This peptide ELISA could detect antibodies against different genotypes of PRRSV including type 1 PRRSV, classical PRRSV, HP-PRRSV, and NADC30 like PRRSV, but not antibodies against other common swine viruses. The results of ROC analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of the M-A110-129 ELISA and M-A148-174 ELISA were 0.967 and 0.996, respectively. Compared the concordance of results using two peptide ELISA assays, the IDEXX PRRSV X3 Ab ELISA and a virus neutralization test, were assessed using a series of 147 sera from pigs vaccinated with the NADC30-like PRRSV inactivated vaccine. The M-A148-174 ELISA had the best consistency, with a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.8772. The concordance rates of the Hipra PRRSV ELISA kit, M-A110-129 ELISA and M-A148-174 ELISA in the field seropositive detection results were 91.08, 86.32 and 95.35%, relative to indirect immunofluorescence assay.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, compared with M-A110-129 ELISA, the PRRSV M-A148-174 ELISA is of value for detecting antibodies against PRRSV and the evaluation of the NADC30-like PRRSV inactivated vaccine, but the advantage is insufficient in serological early diagnosis.

Immunity against a Japanese local strain of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus decreases viremia and symptoms of a highly pathogenic strain

Background

The type 2 highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (HP-PRRSV) has spread throughout countries of southeast Asia, where it has caused severe economic losses. Even countries presently free of PRRSV are at high risk for infection and spread of this virus. Some of these countries, including Japan, have broad epidemics of the local type 2 PRRSV, creating chronic pathogenicity in the domestic pig population. The present study aimed to evaluate the protective efficacy of immunity by infection with a Japanese field isolate, EDRD1, against heterologous challenge with a Vietnamese HP-PRRSV field strain. To this end, four groups of PRRSV-negative crossbreed piglets were used for a challenge study. Groups 1 and 2 were inoculated with EDRD1 via the intranasal route. After 26 days, Groups 2 and 3 were inoculated with HP-PRRSV via the same route. Group 4 served as an uninfected control. Blood and oral fluid samples were taken every 3–4 days after HP-PRRSV challenge; on day 16 post-challenge, all pigs were euthanized, and examined pathologically.

Results

The nucleotide sequence analysis of nonstructural protein 2 gene of EDRD1 and comparison with Vietnamese HP-PRRSV showed that the 39 amino acid deletion sites of EDRD1 was nearly in the same region as the 29 amino acid deletion sites of HP-PRRSV. Immunity conferred by inoculation with EDRD1 dramatically reduced viral load in the sera and tissues besides viral shedding (Group 2) compared with those in pigs infected only with HP-PRRSV (Group 3). The clinical signs and rectal temperature were significantly reduced, and the average daily weight gain was significantly improved in the EDRD1-inoculated pigs (Group 2) compared with the Group 3 pigs. Notably, no viral RNA was detected in various organs of the Group 2 pigs 16 days post-infection with HP-PRRSV, except in one pig. Therefore, the immunity induced by EDRD1 and its genetically close field isolates may play a role in reducing viremia caused by HP-PRRSV.

Conclusions

The results of the present study demonstrate that pigs are highly protected against heterologous Vietnamese HP-PRRSV challenge by immunity against a Japanese local strain, EDRD1.

Comparison of six commercial ELISAs for the detection of antibodies against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in field serum samples

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is one of the most common infectious diseases of swine globally. Since the course of PRRS virus (PRRSV) infection is subclinical, laboratory diagnosis is necessary to detect the virus or specific antibodies. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of IDEXX PRRS X3 Ab Test (IDEXX, USA), Civtest Suis E/S (Hipra, Spain), INgezim PRRS 2.0 (Ingenasa, Spain), VetExpert PRRS Ab ELISA 4.0 (BioNote, Korea), Pigtype PRRSV Ab (Qiagen, Germany) and PrioCHECK PRRSV Antibody ELISA (ThermoFisher, USA), using serum samples obtained from 5 conventional PRRSV-positive and 5 PRRSV-negative Polish pig farms. Specificity of ELISAs ranged from 94.2% (ThermoFisher) to 100% (IDEXX and Hipra). ThermoFisher ELISA had the highest detection rate and detected 67.2% samples from PRRSV-positive farms as positive but considering its low specificity some of the positive results may be incorrect. IDEXX ELISA considered as a reference detected 64.8% positive sera in PRRSV-positive farms. On the other hand Hipra Elisa identified only 51.8% of samples as positive. The diagnostic sensitivity of five ELISAs relative to IDEXX ranged from 80.3% (Hipra) to 96.3% (ThermoFisher). Our study showed significant differences in specificity and diagnostic sensitivity between the compared kits. The differences in the performance appeared to be practically negligible on farms where early infection with PRRSV occurred. However, on PRRSV-negative farms, or farms with PRRSV stable sow herds, some ELISAs can give results not reflecting the infection status in specific age groups.

Ability of ELISAs to detect antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in serum of pigs after inactivated vaccination and subsequent challenge

BACKGROUND

In this study, six enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), intended for routine porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) herd monitoring, are tested for their ability to detect PRRSV specific antibodies in the serum of pigs after vaccination with an inactivated PRRSV type 1 vaccine and subsequent infection with a highly pathogenic (HP) PRRSV field strain. For this reason, ten piglets (group V) from a PRRSV negative herd were vaccinated twice at the age of 2 and 4 weeks with an inactivated PRRSV vaccine. Ten additional piglets (group N) from the same herd remained unvaccinated. Three weeks after second vaccination, each of the piglets received an intradermal application of an HP PRRSV field strain. Serum samples were taken before first vaccination as well as before and 3, 7, 10 and 14 days after HP PRRSV application. All serum samples were tested for PRRSV RNA by reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as well as for PRRSV antibodies with all six study ELISAs.

RESULTS

At the beginning of the study (before vaccination), all of the piglets were PRRSV antibody negative with all study ELISAs. They also tested negative for PRRSV RNA measured by RT-qPCR. From day 3 after HP PRRSV application until the end of the study, a viremia was detected by RT-qPCR in all of the piglets. On day 0 (day of HP PRRSV application), nine out of ten piglets of the pre-vaccinated group tested PRRSV antibody positive with one of the tested ELISAs, although with lower S/P values than after infection. On day 10 after HP PRRSV application, all study ELISAs except one had significantly higher S/P or OD values, respectively more positive samples, in group V than in group N.

CONCLUSIONS

Only one of the tested ELISAs was able to detect reliably PRRSV antibodies in pigs vaccinated with an inactivated PRRSV vaccine. With most of the tested ELISAs, higher S/P values respectively more positive samples after PRRSV infection were seen in the pre-vaccinated group than in the non-vaccinated.