ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to characterize the infection of weaned pigs with swine enteric coronavirus (SeCoV) - a chimeric virus most likely originated from a recombination event between porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV) and transmissible gastroenteritis virus, or its mutant porcine respiratory coronavirus - and two PEDV G1b variants, including a recently described recombinant PEDV-SeCoV (rPEDV-SeCoV), as well as to determine the degree of cross-protection achieved against the rPEDV-SeCoV. For this purpose, forty-eight 4-week-old weaned pigs were randomly allocated into four groups of 12 animals. Piglets within each group were primary inoculated with one of the investigated viral strains (B: PEDV; C: SeCoV and D: rPEDV-SeCoV) or mock-inoculated (A), and exposed to rPEDV-SeCOV at day 20 post-infection; thus, group A was primary challenged (-/rPEDV-SeCoV), groups B and C were subjected to a heterologous re-challenge (PEDV/rPEDV-SeCoV and SeCoV/rPEDV-SeCoV, respectively), and group D to a homologous re-challenge (rPEDV-SeCoV/rPEDV-SeCoV), Clinical signs, viral shedding, microscopic lesions and specific humoral and cellular immune responses (IgG, IgA, neutralizing antibodies and IgA and IFN-γ-secreting cells) were monitored. After primo-infection, all three viral strains induced an undistinguishable mild-to-moderate clinical disease with diarrhoea as the main sign and villus shortening lesions in the small intestine. In homologous re-challenged pigs, no clinical signs or lesions were observed, and viral shedding was only detected in a single animal. This fact may be explained by the significant high level of rPEDV-SeCoV-specific neutralizing antibodies found in these pigs before the challenge. In contrast, prior exposure to a different PEDV G1b variant or SeCoV only provided partial cross-protection, allowing rPEDV-SeCoV replication and shedding in faeces.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between two rapid detection tests (RDT) for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that used a random sample of non-hospitalized patients from the primary care management division of the Healthcare Area of Leon (58 RT-PCR-positive cases and 52 RT-PCR-negative cases). Information regarding symptoms was collected and all patients were simultaneously tested using two RDTs (Combined - cRDT and Differentiated - dRDT). The results of both tests were evaluated using the chi-square test and, for degree of agreement, the kappa coefficient. RESULTS: About 52% of the participants were women (mean age: 48.2±11.0 years). A total of 58.2% were positive for d-RDT and 41.2% were positive for c-RDT. In the subjects who were RT-PCR-positive, d-RDT was positive in 72.4% and c-RDT in 55.2%; in those who were RT-PCR-negative, the percentages were 42.3% and 26.9%, respectively. The kappa coefficient observed between the two RDTs was 0.644, and was higher in patients without a fever or anosmia (0.725) and lower in those with a fever or anosmia (0.524). CONCLUSIONS: There is good agreement between the tests used in this study. Given the sensitivity observed, they can be very useful as a complement to RT-PCR.