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.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  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.
  
  
  RESULTS
  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).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Large Animal Clinic for Internal Medicine, University of Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 11, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. tasat@vetmed.uni-leipzig.de.|Institute for Veterinary Disease Control, AGES, Robert-Koch-Gasse 17, 2340, Mödling, Austria. tasat@vetmed.uni-leipzig.de.
authors.forename: Tatjana
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Sattler
authors.affiliation: Institute for Veterinary Disease Control, AGES, Robert-Koch-Gasse 17, 2340, Mödling, Austria. eveline.wodak@ages.at.
authors.forename: Eveline
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Wodak
authors.affiliation: Institute for Veterinary Disease Control, AGES, Robert-Koch-Gasse 17, 2340, Mödling, Austria. friedrich.schmoll@ages.at.
authors.forename: Friedrich
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Schmoll
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D000914:Antibodies, Viral / Q000276:immunology*; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay / Q000662:veterinary*; D005260:Female; D008297:Male; D019318:Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000276:immunology; D019316:Porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus / Q000276:immunology*; D012463:Saliva / Q000821:virology*; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013048:Specimen Handling / Q000379:methods / Q000662:veterinary; D013552:Swine / Q000821:virology
chemical_list: D000914:Antibodies, Viral