Environmental Sampling for Avian Influenza Virus Detection in Commercial Layer Facilities.

Swiffer avian influenza virus boot cover swabs drag swabs environmental sampling half-life poultry

Journal

Avian diseases
ISSN: 1938-4351
Titre abrégé: Avian Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370617

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2021
Historique:
received: 01 06 2021
accepted: 02 06 2021
entrez: 24 8 2021
pubmed: 25 8 2021
medline: 18 1 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The present study was designed to evaluate the utility of environmental samples for convenient but accurate detection of avian influenza virus (AIV) in commercial poultry houses. First, environmental samples from AIV-negative commercial layer facilities were spiked with an H5N2 low pathogenic AIV and were evaluated for their effect on the detection of viral RNA immediately or after incubation at -20 C, 4 C, 22 C, or 37 C for 24, 48, or 72 hr. Second, Swiffer pads, drag swabs, and boot cover swabs were evaluated for their efficiency in collecting feces and water spiked with the H5N2 LPAIV under a condition simulated for a poultry facility floor. Third, environmental samples collected from commercial layer facilities that experienced an H5N2 highly pathogenic AIV outbreak in 2014-15 were evaluated for the effect of sampling locations on AIV detection. The half-life of AIV was comparable across all environmental samples but decreased with increasing temperatures. Additionally, sampling devices did not differ significantly in their ability to collect AIV-spiked environmental samples from a concrete floor for viral RNA detection. Some locations within a poultry house, such as cages, egg belts, house floor, manure belts, and manure pits, were better choices for sampling than other locations (feed trough, ventilation fan, and water trays) to detect AIV RNA after cleaning and disinfection. Samples representing cages, floor, and manure belts yielded significantly more PCR positives than the other environmental samples. In conclusion, environmental samples can be routinely collected from a poultry barn as noninvasive samples for monitoring AIV. Muestreo ambiental para la detección del virus de la influenza aviar en instalaciones de aves de postura comerciales. El presente estudio fue diseñado para evaluar la utilidad de las muestras ambientales para la detección rápida pero precisa del virus de la influenza aviar (AIV) en casetas avícolas comerciales. Primero, muestras ambientales de las instalaciones comerciales de aves de postura negativas para influenza aviar se inocularon con un virus de la influenza de baja patogenicidad (LPAIV) H5N2 y se evaluaron para determinar su efecto en la detección de ARN viral inmediatamente o después de la incubación a -20 C, 4 C, 22 C o 37 C durante 24 hr, 48 hr o 72 horas. En segundo lugar, se evaluaron las esponjas marca Swiffer, los hisopos de arrastre y los cubre botas para muestreo ambiental para determinar su eficiencia en la recolección de heces y agua inoculada con el virus de influenza aviar de baja patogenicidad H5N2 en una condición simulada de piso de una instalación avícola. En tercer lugar, muestras ambientales recolectadas de instalaciones comerciales de ponedoras que experimentaron un brote de influenza aviar altamente patógena H5N2 en 2014-15, se evaluaron para determinar el efecto de la ubicación de muestreo en la detección de influenza aviar. La vida media del virus de la influenza aviar fue comparable en todas las muestras ambientales, pero disminuyó con el aumento de la temperatura. Además, los dispositivos de muestreo no difirieron significativamente en su capacidad para recolectar muestras ambientales inoculadas con influenza aviar de un piso de concreto para la detección de ARN viral. Algunas ubicaciones dentro de la caseta aviar, como jaulas, bandas transportadoras de huevo, piso de la caseta, bandas transportadoras de gallinasa y fosas de gallinasa, fueron las mejores opciones para el muestreo en comparación con otras ubicaciones (comederos, ventiladores y bandejas de agua) para detectar el ARN del virus de influenza después de la limpieza y desinfección. Las muestras que representan jaulas, piso y bandas transportadoras de gallinasa arrojaron significativamente más resultados positivos de PCR que las otras muestras ambientales. En conclusión, las muestras ambientales se pueden recolectar rutinariamente de uns granja avícola como muestras no invasivas para monitorear al virus de influenza aviar.

Autres résumés

Type: Publisher (spa)
Muestreo ambiental para la detección del virus de la influenza aviar en instalaciones de aves de postura comerciales. El presente estudio fue diseñado para evaluar la utilidad de las muestras ambientales para la detección rápida pero precisa del virus de la influenza aviar (AIV) en casetas avícolas comerciales. Primero, muestras ambientales de las instalaciones comerciales de aves de postura negativas para influenza aviar se inocularon con un virus de la influenza de baja patogenicidad (LPAIV) H5N2 y se evaluaron para determinar su efecto en la detección de ARN viral inmediatamente o después de la incubación a -20 C, 4 C, 22 C o 37 C durante 24 hr, 48 hr o 72 horas. En segundo lugar, se evaluaron las esponjas marca Swiffer, los hisopos de arrastre y los cubre botas para muestreo ambiental para determinar su eficiencia en la recolección de heces y agua inoculada con el virus de influenza aviar de baja patogenicidad H5N2 en una condición simulada de piso de una instalación avícola. En tercer lugar, muestras ambientales recolectadas de instalaciones comerciales de ponedoras que experimentaron un brote de influenza aviar altamente patógena H5N2 en 2014-15, se evaluaron para determinar el efecto de la ubicación de muestreo en la detección de influenza aviar. La vida media del virus de la influenza aviar fue comparable en todas las muestras ambientales, pero disminuyó con el aumento de la temperatura. Además, los dispositivos de muestreo no difirieron significativamente en su capacidad para recolectar muestras ambientales inoculadas con influenza aviar de un piso de concreto para la detección de ARN viral. Algunas ubicaciones dentro de la caseta aviar, como jaulas, bandas transportadoras de huevo, piso de la caseta, bandas transportadoras de gallinasa y fosas de gallinasa, fueron las mejores opciones para el muestreo en comparación con otras ubicaciones (comederos, ventiladores y bandejas de agua) para detectar el ARN del virus de influenza después de la limpieza y desinfección. Las muestras que representan jaulas, piso y bandas transportadoras de gallinasa arrojaron significativamente más resultados positivos de PCR que las otras muestras ambientales. En conclusión, las muestras ambientales se pueden recolectar rutinariamente de uns granja avícola como muestras no invasivas para monitorear al virus de influenza aviar.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34427413
doi: 10.1637/0005-2086-65.3.391
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

391-400

Références

Brown IH. Summary of avian influenza activity in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 2006–2009.
Fouchier RAM, Munster VJ. Epidemiology of low pathogenic avian influenza viruses in wild birds.
Marchenko VY, Alekseev AY, Sharshov KA, Petrov VN, Silko NY, Susloparov IM, Tserennorov D, Otogonbaatar D, Savchenko IA, Shestopalov AM. Ecology of influenza virus in wild bird populations in Central Asia.
Sharp GB, Kawaoka Y, Jones DJ, Bean WJ, Pryor SP, Hinshaw V, Webster RG. Coinfection of wild ducks by influenza A viruses: distribution patterns and biological significance.
Sharp GB, Kawaoka Y, Wright SM, Turner B, Hinshaw V, Webster RG. Wild ducks are the reservoir for only a limited number of influenza A subtypes.
Swayne DE. Understanding the complex pathobiology of high pathogenicity avian influenza viruses in birds.
Ip HS, Torchetti MK, Crespo R, Kohrs P, Debruyn P, Mansfield KG, Baszler T, Badcore L, Bodenstein B, Shearn-Boschsler V, et al. Novel Eurasian highly pathogenic avian influenza a H5 viruses in wild birds, Washington, USA, 2014.
Taubenberger JK, Morens DM. H5Nx panzootic bird flu—influenza's newest worldwide evolutionary tour.
[IDALS] Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Avian Influeuza-2015 Summary. Iowa (USA): IDALS [accessed 2017 Jun 29] http://www.iowaagriculture.gov/AvianInfluenza.asp.
[CIDRP] Centre for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Report finds $1.2 billion in Iowa avian flu damage. Minnesota (USA): CIDRP [accessed 2017 Oct 1]. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2015/08/report-finds-12-billion-iowa-avian-flu-damage.
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2004. Guiding principles for Highly pathogenic avian influenza surveillance and diagnostic networks in Asia, FAO expert meeting on surveillance and diagnosis of avian influenza in Asia, Jul 21–23; Bangkok (Thailand). p. 5; 2004.
[USDA APHIS]. United Stated Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Agency. 9 CFR Parts 56, 145, 146, and 147 (Docket No. APHIS-2018-0062), RIN 0579-AE49. National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions. In:
[NPIP-CFR] National Poultry Improvement Plan- Code of Federal Regulations. National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions 2018. NPIP-CFR. [accessed 2020 Nov 29]. https://www.poultryimprovement.org/documents/AuxiliaryProvisions07252018.pdf
[USDA-APHIS-VS] United Stated Department of Agriculture - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Agency-Veterinary Services. Highly pathogenic avian influenza response plan, The Red Book, Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness & Response Plan. Washington DC (USA): USDA-APHIS-VS [modified 2017 May; accessed 2020 Nov 29] https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/hpai_response_plan.pdf; 2017.
Alexander DJ. A review of avian influenza in different bird species.
Sims LD, Domenech J, Benigno C, Kahn S, Kamata A, Lubroth J, Martikn V, Roeder P. Origin and evolution of highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza in Asia.
Lang AS, Kelly A, Runstadler JA. Prevalence and diversity of avian influenza viruses in environmental reservoirs.
Lebarbenchon C, Poulson R, Shannon K, Slagter J, Morgan J, Wilcox BR, Berdeen J, Knusten GA, Cardona CJ, Stallknecht DE. Isolation of influenza A viruses from wild ducks and feathers in Minnesota (2010–2011).
[OIE/FAO] World Organisation for Animal Health/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. OIE/FAO Situation Report and Guidance for H5N8 and other Eurasian H5 clade 2.3.4.4 Avian Influenza Viruses. [accessed on 2020 Nov 29]. https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/home/eng/media_center/docs/pdf/portailai/h5n8_offlu_statement-1.pdf; 2016
Hood G, Roche X, Brioudes A, Von Dobschuetz S, Fasina FO, Kalpravidh W, Makonnen Y, Lubroth J, Sims L. A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses.
Brugh M, Johnson DC. Epidemiology of avian influenza in domestic poultry.
Muñoz-Aguayo J, Flores-Figueroa C, VanBeusekom E, McComb B, Wileman B, Anderson J, Halvorson DA, Kromm M, Lauer D, Marusak R, et al. Environmental sampling for influenza A viruses in turkey barns.
Scoizec A, Niqueux E, Thomas R, Daniel P, Schmitz A, Le Bouquin S. Airborne detection of H5N8 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus genome in poultry farms, France.
Arnold ME, Martelli F, Mclaren I, Davies RH. Estimation of the sensitivity of environmental sampling for detection of Salmonella in commercial layer flocks post-introduction of national control programmes.
Gudbjörnsdóttir B, Suihko ML, Gustavsson P, Thorkelsson G, Salo S, Sjöberg AM, Niclasen O, Bredholt S. The incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in meat, poultry and seafood plants in the Nordic countries.
Leung YHC, Zhang L-J, Chow C-K, Tsang C-L, Ng C-F, Wong CK, Guan Y, Peiris JS. Poultry drinking water used for avian influenza surveillance.
Kingston DJ. A comparison of culturing drag swabs and litter for identification of infections with Salmonella spp. in commercial chicken flocks.
Caldwell DJ, Hargis ABM, Corrier ACDE, Deloachb JR. Frequency of isolation of salmonella from protective foot covers worn in broiler houses as compared to drag-swab sampling.
Byrd JA, Corrier DE, DeLoach JR, Nisbet DJ. Comparison of drag-swab environmental protocols for the isolation of Salmonella in poultry houses.
Mallinson ET, Tate CR, Miller RG, Bennett B, Russek-Cohenc E. Monitoring poultry farms for Salmonella by drag-swab sampling and antigen-capture immunoassay.
Bevins SN, Pedersen K, Lutman MW, Baroch JA, Schmit BS, Kohler D, Gidlewski T, Nolte DL, Swafford SR, DeLiberto TJ. Large-scale avian influenza surveillance in wild birds throughout the United States.
Carrique-Mas JJ, Davies RH. Sampling and bacteriological detection of Salmonella in poultry and poultry premises: a review.
Mueller-Doblies D, Sayers AR, Carrique-Mas JJ, Davies RH. Comparison of sampling methods to detect Salmonella infection of turkey flocks.
Eisenberg T, Wolter W, Lenz M, Schlez K, Zschöck M. Boot swabs to collect environmental samples from common locations in dairy herds for Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP) detection.
Ma MJ, Yang XX, Xia X, Anderson BD, Heil GL, Qian YH, Lu B, Cao WC, Gray GC. Comparison of commercial influenza A virus assays in detecting avian influenza H7N9 among poultry cloacal swabs, China.
Woolcock PR. Avian influenza virus isolation and propagation in chicken eggs. In: Spackman E, editor.
Krauss S, Walker D, Webster RG. Infleunza virus isolation. In: Kawaoka Y, Neumann G, editors.
Senne DA. Virus propogation in embryonating eggs. In: Louise Dufour-Zavala, DE Swayne, JR Glisson, JE Peason, WM Reed, MW Jackwood PW, editor.
Killian ML. Hemagglutination assay for the avian influenza virus. In: Spackman E, editor.
Spackman E. Avian influenza virus detection and quantitation by real-time RT-PCR. In: Spackman E, editor.
R Core Team.
Bryan M, Zimmerman JJ, Berry WJ. The use of half-lives and associated confidence intervals in biological research.
Leclerc GJ, Leclerc GM, Barredo JC. Real-time RT-PCR analysis of mRNA decay: half-life of Beta-actin mRNA in human leukemia CCRF-CEM and Nalm-6 cell lines.
Wilson EB, Hilferty MM. The distribution of chi-square.
International Business Machines Corporation.
Nazir J, Haumacher R, Ike AC, Marschang RE. Persistence of avian influenza viruses in lake sediment, duck feces, and duck meat.
Sivanandan V, Halvorson DA, Laudert E, Senne DA, Kumar MC. Isolation of H13N2 influenza A virus from turkeys and surface water.
Suarez DL, Spackman AE, Senne ADA, Bulaga BL, Welsch AC, Frobergd K. The effect of various disinfectants on detection of avian influenza virus by real time RT-PCR.

Auteurs

Shahan Azeem (S)

Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Phillip Gauger (P)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Yuko Sato (Y)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Guo Baoqing (G)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Anna Wolc (A)

Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
Hy-Line International, Dallas Center, IA 50063.

James Carlson (J)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Karen Harmon (K)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Jianqiang Zhang (J)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Hai Hoang (H)

Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Jian Yuan (J)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Mahesh Bhandari (M)

Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Hanjun Kim (H)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Kathleen Gibson (K)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Franco Matias-Ferreyra (F)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.

Kyoung-Jin Yoon (KJ)

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, kyoon@iastate.edu.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH