↓ Skip to main content

The use of oral fluids to monitor key pathogens in porcine respiratory disease complex

Overview of attention for article published in Porcine Health Management, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The use of oral fluids to monitor key pathogens in porcine respiratory disease complex
Published in
Porcine Health Management, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40813-017-0055-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Hernandez-Garcia, Nardy Robben, Damien Magnée, Thomas Eley, Ian Dennis, Sara M. Kayes, Jill R. Thomson, Alexander W. Tucker

Abstract

The usefulness of oral fluid (OF) sampling for surveillance of infections in pig populations is already accepted but its value as a tool to support investigations of porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC) has been less well studied. This study set out to describe detection patterns of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2), swine influenza virus type A (SIV) and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyo) among farms showing differing severity of PRDC. The study included six wean-to-finish pig batches from farms with historical occurrence of respiratory disease. OF samples were collected from six pens every two weeks from the 5(th) to the 21(st) week of age and tested by real time PCR for presence of PRRSV, SIV and M. hyo and by quantitative real time PCR for PCV2. Data was evaluated alongside clinical and post-mortem observations, mortality rate, slaughter pathology, histopathology, and immunohistochemistry testing data for PCV2 antigen where available. PRRSV and M. hyo were detectable in OF but with inconsistency between pens at the same sampling time and within pens over sequential sampling times. Detection of SIV in clinical and subclinical cases showed good consistency between pens at the same sampling time point with detection possible for periods of 2-4 weeks. Quantitative testing of OF for PCV2 indicated different patterns and levels of detection between farms unaffected or affected by porcine circovirus diseases (PCVD). There was good correlation of PCR results for multiple samples collected from the same pen but no associations were found between prevalence of positive test results and pen location in the building or sex of pigs. Detection patterns for PRRSV, SIV and M. hyo supported the effectiveness of OF testing as an additional tool for diagnostic investigation of PRDC but emphasised the importance of sampling from multiple pens and on multiple occasions. Preliminary evidence supported the measurement of PCV2 load in pooled OF as a tool for prediction of clinical or subclinical PCVD at farm level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 36 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#13,454,453
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from Porcine Health Management
#95
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,453
of 309,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Porcine Health Management
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them