↓ Skip to main content

Initial vaccination and revaccination with Type I PRRS 94881 MLV reduces viral load and infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus

Overview of attention for article published in Porcine Health Management, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Initial vaccination and revaccination with Type I PRRS 94881 MLV reduces viral load and infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus
Published in
Porcine Health Management, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40813-018-0096-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy Kroll, Michael Piontkowski, Christian Kraft, Teresa Coll, Oliver Gomez-Duran

Abstract

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) causes respiratory distress in pigs, reproductive failure in breeding-age gilts and sows, and can have devastating economic consequences in domestic herds. Several PRRS vaccines are available commercially. This study compared the effectiveness of single-vaccination and revaccination schedules using the PRRS 94881 Type I modified live virus (MLV) vaccine ReproCyc® PRRS EU with no vaccination (challenge control) in protecting against a PRRS virus (PRRSV) challenge in non-pregnant gilts. Data were available from 48 gilts across three groups: a challenge control group (n = 16), which received no vaccination; a revaccination group (n = 16), which received ReproCyc® PRRS EU on Days 0 and 56; and a single vaccination group (n = 16), which received ReproCyc® PRRS EU on Day 56. All gilts were PRRSV RNA-negative (based on reverse transcription and quantitative polymerase chain reaction [RT-qPCR]) and PRRSV seronegative (based on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) at Day 0. All gilts were challenged with PRRSV strain 190136 on Day 91.Viral RNA loads in both vaccination groups were significantly reduced compared with the challenge control group on Days 98 (P < 0.0001) and 101 (P < 0.0001), indicating that vaccinated gilts were better able to respond to challenge than unvaccinated gilts. At all timepoints following challenge, mean viral RNA load and the percentage of PRRSV RNA-positive gilts were numerically higher in the single-vaccination group than in the revaccination group; these differences were statistically significant on Day 101 (P = 0.0434). Furthermore, viremia levels after challenge were significantly lower in the revaccination group than in the single-vaccination group based on median area under the curve (AUC) values for viral RNA load from Day 91 to Day 112, suggesting that revaccinated gilts had better protection from viral infection than gilts who received a single vaccination. Protection from viremia did not correlate with the proportion of seropositive gilts on Day 91. In the single-vaccination group, 94% of pigs were seropositive on Day 91 compared with 56% in the revaccination group. Vaccination was well tolerated and no safety concerns were identified. Both single-vaccination and revaccination with ReproCyc® PRRS EU were effective in reducing PRRSV viremia post-challenge. These findings have important implications for herd management as both the single-vaccination and revaccination schedules protect against PRRSV challenge, with revaccination appearing to provide better protection from viremia than single vaccination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 6 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,895,547
of 13,589,098 outputs
Outputs from Porcine Health Management
#22
of 84 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,328
of 264,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Porcine Health Management
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,589,098 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 84 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 71% 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 264,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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