Comparison of four lung scoring systems for the assessment of the pathological outcomes derived from Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae experimental infections

BMC Veterinary Research

Joaquim Segalés¹  Lorenzo Fraile³  Virginia Aragón⁴  Marina Sibila² 

[1] Departament de Sanitat i Anatomia Animals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain;Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), UAB-IRTA, Campus de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain;Departament de Producció Animal, ETSEA, Universitat de Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain;Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Barcelona, Spain

关键词: PCR;    Bacteriology;    Lung lesion scoring;    Experimental inoculation;    Porcine pleuropneumonia;    Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae;   

Others  :  869663
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-6148-10-165

 received in 2014-02-18, accepted in 2014-06-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In this study, four lung lesion scoring methods (Slaughterhouse Pleurisy Evaluation System [SPES], Consolidation Lung Lesion Score [LLS], Image analyses [IA] and Ratio of lung weight/body weight [LW/BW]) were compared for the assessment of the different pathological outcomes derived from an Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae (App) experimental infection model. Moreover, pathological data was coupled with clinical (fever, inappetence and clinical score), production (average daily weigh gain [ADWG]) and diagnostic (PCR, ELISA and bacterial isolation) parameters within the four infection outcomes (peracute, acute, subclinically infected and non-infected).

Results

From the 61 inoculated animals, 9 were classified as peracute (presence of severe App-like clinical signs and lesions and sudden death or euthanasia shortly after inoculation), 31 as acutely affected (presence of App-like clinical signs and lesions and survival until the end of the experiment), 12 as subclinically infected (very mild or no clinical signs but App infection confirmed) and 9 as non-infected animals (lack of App-like clinical signs and lack of evidence of App infection). A significant correlation between all lung lesion scoring systems was found with the exception of SPES score versus LW/BW. SPES showed a statistically significant association with all clinical, production and diagnostic (with the exception of PCR detection of App in the tonsil) variables assessed. LLS and IA showed similar statistically significant associations as SPES, with the exception of seroconversion against App at necropsy. In contrast, LW/BW was statistically associated only with App isolation in lungs, presence of App-like lesions and ELISA OD values at necropsy.

Conclusions

In conclusion, SPES, LLS and IA are economic, fast and easy-to-perform lung scoring methods that, in combination with different clinical and diagnostic parameters, allow the characterization of different outcomes after App infection.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Sibila et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gottschalk M: Actinobacillosis. In Diseases of Swine. Tenth edition. Edited by Zimmerman LK J, Ramirez A, Schwartz KJ, Stevenson GW. Iowa: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2012:653-669.
• [2]Bosse JT, Janson H, Sheehan BJ, Beddek AJ, Rycroft AN, Kroll JS, Langford PR: Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae: pathobiology and pathogenesis of infection. Microbes Infect 2002, 4:225-235.
• [3]Hoeltig D, Hennig-Pauka I, Thies K, Rehm T, Beyerbach M, Strutzberg-Minder K, Gerlach GF, Waldmann KH: A novel Respiratory Health Score (RHS) supports a role of acute lung damage and pig breed in the course of an Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae infection. BMC Vet Res 2009, 5:14.
• [4]Tobias TJ, Bouma A, Daemen AJ, Wagenaar JA, Stegeman A, Klinkenberg D: Association between transmission rate and disease severity for Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae infection in pigs. Vet Res 2013, 44:2.
• [5]Vigre H, Angen O, Barfod K, Lavritsen DT, Sorensen V: Transmission of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in pigs under field-like conditions: emphasis on tonsillarcolonisation and passively acquired colostral antibodies. Vet Microbiol 2002, 89:151-159.
• [6]Brauer C, Hennig-Pauka I, Hoeltig D, Buettner FF, Beyerbach M, Gasse H, Gerlach GF, Waldmann KH: Experimental Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae challenge in swine: comparison of computed tomographic and radiographic findings during disease. BMC Vet Res 2012, 8:47.
• [7]Calsamiglia M, Pijoan C, Trigo A: Application of a nested polymerase chain reaction assay to detect Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae from nasal swabs. J Vet Diagn Invest 1999, 11:246-251.
• [8]Moore GM, Mowrey DH, Tonkinson LV, Lechtenberg KF, Schneider JH: Efficacy dose determination study of tilmicosin phosphate in feed for control of pneumonia caused by Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in swine. Am J Vet Res 1996, 57:220-223.
• [9]Fraile L, Alegre A, Lopez-Jimenez R, Nofrarias M, Segales J: Risk factors associated with pleuritis and cranio-ventral pulmonary consolidation in slaughter-aged pigs. Vet J 2010, 184:326-333.
• [10]Merialdi G, Dottori M, Bonilauri P, Luppi A, Gozio S, Pozzi P, Spaggiari B, Martelli P: Survey of pleuritis and pulmonary lesions in pigs at abattoir with a focus on the extent of the condition and herd risk factors. Vet J 2012, 193:234-239.
• [11]Hannan PC, Bhogal BS, Fish JP: Tylosin tartrate and tiamutilin effects on experimental piglet pneumonia induced with pneumonic pig lung homogenate containing mycoplasmas, bacteria and viruses. Res Vet Sci 1982, 33:76-88.
• [12]EDQM: Porcine Actinobacillus vaccine (inactivated) 01/2005:1360. Eur Pharmacopeia 50 2007, 1:784-785. Fifth edition
• [13]Sibila M, Fort M, Nofrarias M, Perez de Rozas A, Galindo-Cardiel I, Mateu E, Segales J: Simultaneous porcine circovirus type 2 and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae co-inoculation does not potentiate disease in conventional pigs. J Comp Pathol 2012, 147:285-295.
• [14]Schaller A, Djordjevic SP, Eamens GJ, Forbes WA, Kuhn R, Kuhnert P, Gottschalk M, Nicolet J, Frey J: Identification and detection of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae by PCR based on the gene apxIVA. Vet Microbiol 2001, 79:47-62.
• [15]Paradis MA, Vessie GH, Merrill JK, Dick CP, Moore C, Charbonneau G, Gottschalk M, MacInnes JI, Higgins R, Mittal KR, Girard C, Aramini JJ, Wilson JB: Efficacy of tilmicosin in the control of experimentally induced Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae infection in swine. Can J Vet Res 2004, 68:7-11.
• [16]Rohrbach BW, Hall RF, Hitchcock JP: Effect of subclinical infection with Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in commingled feeder swine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993, 202:1095-1098.
• [17]Fittipaldi N, Broes A, Harel J, Kobisch M, Gottschalk M: Evaluation and field validation of PCR tests for detection of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in subclinically infected pigs. J Clin Microbiol 2003, 41:5085-5093.
• [18]Opriessnig T, Hemann M, Johnson JK, Heinen S, Gimenez-Lirola LG, O’Neill KC, Hoang H, Yoon KJ, Gottschalk M, Halbur PG: Evaluation of diagnostic assays for the serological detection of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae on samples of known or unknown exposure. J Vet Diagn Invest 2013, 25:61-71.
• [19]Shope RE: Porcine contagious pleuropneumonia. I. Experimental transmission, etiology, and pathology. J Exp Med 1964, 119:357-368.
• [20]Ajito T, Haga Y, Homma S, Goryo M, Okada K: Immunohistological evaluation on respiratory lesions of pigs intranasally inoculated with Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae serotype 1. J Vet Med Sci 1996, 58:297-303.
• [21]Lechtenberg KF, Shryock TR, Moore G: Characterization of an Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae seeder pig challenge-exposure model. Am J Vet Res 1994, 55:1703-1709.
• [22]Holtig D, Hennig-Pauka I, Beyerbach M, Thies K, Rehm T, Gerlach GF, Waldmann KH: Comparison of the diagnostic significance of clinical, radiographic and ultrasonographic results after an experimental aerosol infection of pigs with Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2008, 121:422-431.
• [23]Eamens GJ, Gonsalves JR, Whittington AM, Turner B: Evaluation of serovar-independent ELISA antigens of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae in pigs following vaccination or experimental challenge with respiratory pathogens and natural A. pleuropneumoniaeserovar 1 challenge. Aust Vet J 2012, 90:490-498.
• [24]Benga L, Hoeltig D, Rehm T, Rothkoetter HJ, Pabst R, Valentin-Weigand P: Expression levels of immune markers in Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae infected pigs and their relation to breed and clinical symptoms. BMC Vet Res 2009, 5:13.