Characterizing best practices for tonsil-oral-scrubbing (TOSc) collection for PRRSV RNA detection in sows
Peng Li,Ana Paula Poeta Silva,Hao Tong,Paul Yeske,Laura Dalquist,Jason Kelly,Matt Finch,Amanda V Anderson Reever,Darwin L Reicks,Joseph F Connor,Phillip C Gauger,Derald J Holtkamp,Gustavo S Silva,Giovani Trevisan,Daniel C L Linhares
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00385-7
2024-10-07
Abstract:Background: A Tonsil-Oral-Scrubbing (TOSc) method was developed to sample the sow's oropharyngeal and tonsillar area without snaring and has shown comparable porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RNA detection rates with tonsil scraping in infected sows. This study investigated the effect of specific TOSc collection factors on the PRRSV RT-rtPCR results (detection rates and Ct values). Those factors include whether the sow was snared or not snared at TOSc collection ("snared" vs. "not snared"); whether the sow was laying down or standing at collection ("laying down" vs. "standing"); and type of collectors used for TOSc collection ("TOSc prototype" vs. "Spiral-headed AI catheter (SHAC)"). Volume of fluid was compared between "snared" and "not snared" groups, and collection time was compared between "laying down" and "standing" groups as well. Results: The effect for each factor was assessed in three independent studies following the same design: TOSc was collected twice from each studied sow, once with the baseline level for a factor ("not snared", or "standing", or "TOSc prototype"), and another time followed by the other level of the paired factor ("snared", "laying down", or "SHAC", correspondingly). Results showed that "not snared" TOSc had numerically higher PRRSV RNA detection rate (60.7% vs. 52.5%, p = 0.11), significantly lower median Ct values (31.9 vs. 32.3, p < 0.01), and significantly higher volume of fluid than "snared" samples (1.8 mL vs. 1.2 mL, p < 0.01); "laying down" TOSc samples did not differ statistically (60.7% vs. 60.7%) in the PRRSV RNA detection rate, obtained numerically lower median Ct values (30.9 vs. 31.3, p = 0.19), but took 40% less collection time compared to "standing" TOSc samples; samples collected using the "TOSc prototype" had numerically higher PRRSV RNA detection rate (91.7% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.27) and significantly lower median Ct values (32.8 vs. 34.5, p < 0.01) than that from "SHAC". Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study best practices for TOSc collection aiming higher detection rate of PRRSV RNA while minimizing time for collection were suggested to be sampling TOSc without snaring, when sows are laying down, and using a prototype TOSc collector.