Benefit of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD) Eradication in Cattle on Pestivirus Seroprevalence in Sheep

Comparison of bovine viral diarrhea virus detection methods: Results of an international proficiency trial

Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), one of the most important infectious cattle diseases globally, is being combated in multiple countries. The main source for virus transmission within herds and especially to unaffected cattle farms are life-long persistently infected (PI), immunotolerant animals. Therefore, the early identification of PI calves is a major pillar of disease control programs. In addition, rapid and reliable virus identification is necessary to confirm the causative agent in acute clinical cases. Here, we initiated an international interlaboratory proficiency trial in order to evaluate BVDV detection methods. Four ear notch samples and four sera were provided to the participating veterinary diagnostic laboratories (n = 40). Two of the ear notches and two sera contained BVDV and two ear notches and one serum were negative for pestiviruses. The remaining serum was positive for the ovine border disease virus (BDV). The sample panel was analyzed by an ERNS-based ELISA for antigen detection, diverse real-time RT-PCR (RT-qPCR) assays and/or virus isolation. Occasionally, additional typing of the virus strains was performed by sequencing or specific antibody staining of the obtained cell culture isolates. While the antigen ELISA allowed reliable BVDV diagnostics, infectious virus could be isolated only in just under half of the attempts (43.33%). RT-qPCR enabled the sensitive detection of pestiviruses, though an impact of the extraction method on the resulting quantification cycle values was observed. In general, subsequent typing of the detected virus strains is required to differentiate BVDV from BDV infections. In conclusion, for BVDV identification in clinical cases or in the context of disease control, RT-qPCR methods or ERNS antigen ELISAs should be preferentially used.

International proficiency trial for bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) antibody detection: limitations of milk serology

Background

Control programs were implemented in several countries against bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), one of the most significant cattle diseases worldwide. Most of the programs rely on serological diagnostics in any phase of the program. For the detection of antibodies against BVD virus (BVDV), neutralization tests as well as a variety of (commercially available) ELISAs are used. Here, test systems applied in various laboratories were evaluated in the context of an international interlaboratory proficiency trial. A panel of standardized samples comprising five sera and five milk samples was sent to veterinary diagnostic laboratories (n=51) and test kit manufacturers (n=3).

Results

The ring trial sample panel was investigated by nine commercially available antibody ELISAs as well as by neutralization tests against diverse BVDV-1, BVDV-2 and/or border disease virus (BDV) strains. The negative serum and milk sample as well as a serum collected after BVDV-2 infection were mostly correctly tested regardless of the applied test system. A serum sample obtained from an animal immunized with an inactivated BVDV-1 vaccine tested positive by neutralization tests or by total antibody or E^rns-based ELISAs, while all applied NS3-based ELISAs gave negative results. A further serum, containing antibodies against the ovine BDV, reacted positive in all applied BVDV ELISAs, a differentiation between anti-BDV and anti-BVDV antibodies was only enabled by parallel application of neutralization tests against BVDV and BDV isolates. For the BVDV antibody-positive milk samples (n=4), which mimicked prevalences of 20% (n=2) or 50% (n=2), considerable differences in the number of positive results were observed, which mainly depended on the ELISA kit and the sample incubation protocols used. These 4 milk samples tested negative in 43.6%, 50.9%, 3.6% and 56.4%, respectively, of all investigations. Overall, negative results occurred more often, when a short sample incubation protocol instead of an over-night protocol was applied.

Conclusions

While the seronegative samples were correctly evaluated in most cases, there were considerable differences in the number of correct evaluations for the seropositive samples, most notably when pooled milk samples were tested. Hence, thorough validation and careful selection of ELISA tests are necessary, especially when applied during surveillance programs in BVD-free regions.