↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the specificity of a commercial ELISA for detection of antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in individual oral fluid of pigs collected in two different…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Evaluation of the specificity of a commercial ELISA for detection of antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in individual oral fluid of pigs collected in two different ways
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12917-015-0388-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatjana Sattler, Eveline Wodak, Friedrich Schmoll

Abstract

The monitoring of infectious diseases like the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) using pen-wise oral fluid samples becomes more and more established. The collection of individual oral fluid, which would be useful in the monitoring of PRRSV negative boar studs, is rather difficult. The aim of the study was to test two methods for individual oral fluid collection from pigs and to evaluate the specificity of a commercial ELISA for detection of PRRSV antibodies in these sample matrices. For this reason, 334 serum samples from PRRSV negative pigs (group 1) and 71 serum samples from PRRSV positive pigs (group 2) were tested for PRRSV antibodies with a commercial ELISA. Individual oral fluid was collected with a cotton gauze swab from 311 pigs from group 1 and 39 pigs from group 2. Furthermore, 312 oral fluid samples from group 1 and 67 oral fluid samples from group 2 were taken with a self-drying foam swab (GenoTube). The recollected oral fluid was then analysed twice with a commercial ELISA for detection of PRRSV antibodies in oral fluid. All serum samples from group 1 tested negative for PRRSV antibodies. The collection of oral fluid was sufficient in all samples. Sampling with GenoTubes was less time consuming than sampling with cotton gauze swabs. False positive results were obtained in 7 (measure 1) respectively 9 (measure 2) oral fluid samples recollected from cotton gauze swabs and in 9 and 8 samples from GenoTubes. The specificity of the oral fluid ELISA was 97.4% for cotton gauze swabs and 97.3% for GenoTubes. 70 out of 71 serum samples and all oral fluid samples from group 2 tested positive for PRRSV antibodies. The sensitivity of the oral fluid ELISA was 100%. According to the kappa coefficient, the results showed an almost perfect agreement between serum and oral fluid collected in both ways (kappa > 0.8). Both methods used for individual oral fluid collection proved to be practical and efficient and can be used for PRRSV antibody detection. It has to be considered, however, that false positive results may occur more often than in serum samples.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 37%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#2,106
of 3,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,054
of 278,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#32
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,298 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.