Nasal Wipes for Influenza A Virus Detection and Isolation from Swine.

Surveillance for influenza A viruses in swine is critical to human and animal health because influenza A virus rapidly evolves in swine populations and new strains are continually emerging. Swine are able to be infected by diverse lineages of influenza A virus making them important hosts for the emergence and maintenance of novel influenza A virus strains. Sampling pigs in diverse settings such as commercial swine farms, agricultural fairs, and live animal markets is important to provide a comprehensive view of currently circulating IAV strains. The current gold-standard ante-mortem sampling technique (i.e. collection of nasal swabs) is labor intensive because it requires physical restraint of the pigs. Nasal wipes involve rubbing a piece of fabric across the snout of the pig with minimal to no restraint of the animal. The nasal wipe procedure is simple to perform and does not require personnel with professional veterinary or animal handling training. While slightly less sensitive than nasal swabs, virus detection and isolation rates are adequate to make nasal wipes a viable alternative for sampling individual pigs when low stress sampling methods are required. The proceeding protocol outlines the steps needed to collect a viable nasal wipe from an individual pig.

Utility of snout wipe samples for influenza A virus surveillance in exhibition swine populations.

BACKGROUND: Sporadic influenza A virus (IAV) outbreaks in humans and swine have resulted from commingling of large numbers of people and pigs at agricultural fairs in the United States. Current antemortem IAV surveillance strategies in swine require collecting nasal swabs, which entails restraining pigs with snares. Restraint is labor-intensive for samplers, stressful for pigs, and displeasing to onlookers because pigs often resist and vocalize. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of snout wipes in exhibition swine as a method to make IAV surveillance efforts less intrusive, less labor-intensive, and more widely accepted among pig owners and exhibition officials. METHODS: Three materials (rayon/polyester gauze, cotton gauze, and Swiffer(®) Sweeper dry cloths) were inoculated with IAV, and viral recoveries from these materials were quantified using qRT-PCR and TCID50 assays. In a field trial, paired cotton gauze snout wipes and gold standard polyester-tipped nasal swabs were collected from 553 pigs representing 29 agricultural fairs and the qualitative results of rRT-PCR and viral isolation were compared. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Viral recoveries from potential snout wipe materials ranged from 0.26 to 1.59 log10 TCID50 /ml less than that of the positive control in which no substrate was included; rayon/polyester gauze performed significantly worse than the other materials. In the field, snout wipes and nasal swabs had high levels of agreement for both rRT-PCR detection and virus isolation. Although further investigation and refinement of the sampling method is needed, results indicate that snout wipes will facilitate convenient and undisruptive IAV surveillance in pigs at agricultural fairs.

Comparative effectiveness of isolation techniques for contemporary Influenza A virus strains circulating in exhibition swine.

The current study sought to compare the effectiveness of 2 virus isolation methods for the recovery of contemporary Influenza A virus (FLUAV) strains circulating in swine at agricultural exhibitions. Following the emergence of the influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus, increased surveillance of FLUAV strains among swine was recommended for early detection of emerging strains that threaten animal and human health. The increase in genetic drift and genomic reassortment among FLUAV strains infecting swine since 1998 necessitates that detection protocols be periodically validated for contemporary FLUAV strains. During 2009, nasal swabs were collected from 221 clinically healthy pigs at 12 agricultural exhibitions in Ohio. Nasal swabs were tested in parallel for the presence of FLUAV strains using 3 methodologies: 2 passages through Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells adapted to serum-free medium (SFM), 2 passages through embryonated chicken eggs (ECEs), and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR). Of the 221 samples, 40 (18.1%) were positive for FLUAV recovery in MDCK cell culture and 13 (5.9%) were positive in ECEs (P = 0.015). All samples positive in ECEs were also positive in MDCK cell culture. MDCK cell culture virus isolation results were in perfect agreement with results of the real-time RT-PCR. Hemagglutinin and neuraminidase combinations of the recovered isolates were H1N2 and H3N2, which were consistent with FLUAV strains circulating in U.S. pigs. Effectiveness and cost savings justify the use of SFM-adapted MDCK cell culture over ECEs for the recovery of contemporary FLUAV strains from exhibition swine.