Literature DB >> 26402228

Influenza Virus Surveillance in Coordinated Swine Production Systems, United States.

Bryan S Kaplan, Jennifer DeBeauchamp, Evelyn Stigger-Rosser, John Franks, Jeri Carol Crumpton, Jasmine Turner, Daniel Darnell, Trushar Jeevan, Ghazi Kayali, Abbey Harding, Richard J Webby, James F Lowe.   

Abstract

To clarify the epidemiology of influenza A viruses in coordinated swine production systems to which no animals from outside the system are introduced, we conducted virologic surveillance during September 2012-September 2013. Animal age, geographic location, and farm type were found to affect the prevalence of these viruses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  H1N1; H3N2; North America; United States; influenza; surveillance; swine; viruses; zoonoses

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26402228      PMCID: PMC4593420          DOI: 10.3201/eid2110.140633

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis        ISSN: 1080-6040            Impact factor:   6.883


Influenza A viruses (IAVs) are the etiologic agents of acute respiratory disease in many mammalian species. Although originating in wild aquatic birds, IAVs have been successful in crossing the species barrier, and specific subtypes have become endemic among humans and domestic swine populations (). In the United States, influenza was first described in swine herds during the 1918 pandemic and has circulated among domestic pigs for nearly a century (). The ability of swine IAVs to infect humans and cause pandemics such as that of the influenza A(H1N1) virus observed during 2009 (,) and the sporadic transmission of various swine influenza viruses, including H1N1 (), H3N2 (), and variant H3N2 (), are public health concerns and highlight the need for increased vigilance and understanding of IAV epidemiology among swine. Here we report the results from 13-months of active surveillance of IAV in coordinated swine production systems in the United States. The objectives of this study were 1) to determine the prevalence of IAV within farms in a closed production system and 2) to determine which sampled population is most affected by IAV.

The Study

Multisite coordinated production systems are the common method of swine production in the United States. These systems consist of multiple farms operating in tandem, with each farm responsible for 1 stage of the production process (Figure 1). These systems are closed, meaning there are no introductions of animals from outside the system. Each farm in the system has a specific purpose: 1) to breed, gestate, farrow, and raise to the point of weaning replacement breeding stock of a specified genotype (multiplier farms [MF]); 2) to raise replacement female pigs, commonly called gilts, to 5–6 months of age for breeding (gilt development farms or units [GDU]); and 3) to breed, gestate, deliver, and raise to the point of weaning piglets specifically for meat production (breed-to-wean farms [BTW]). Gilts from GDUs are moved to MF or BTW farms for breeding. All farms house multiple age cohorts, although in different rooms or buildings. During suckling of piglets on MF and BTW farms, as well as in GDU farms, 1 cohort of piglets differing in age by <1 week are housed in a single room/building, and 1 cohort is removed before the entry of the next.
Figure 1

Flow of animals through a closed swine production system. Coordinated swine production systems maximize desired animal traits and weight gain. High-quality breeding sows grown and bred in multiplier farms (MF-Gilts) were sampled transfer to commercial gilt development farms (GDU), where they were sampled again at exit (6 months). At ≈3 weeks of age, piglets were sampled before weaning (MF-Pigs). Mature gilts were transported from the GDU to 1 of 4 commercial breed-to-wean (BTW) farms, where samples were collected from gilts before entry and piglets before weaning.

Flow of animals through a closed swine production system. Coordinated swine production systems maximize desired animal traits and weight gain. High-quality breeding sows grown and bred in multiplier farms (MF-Gilts) were sampled transfer to commercial gilt development farms (GDU), where they were sampled again at exit (6 months). At ≈3 weeks of age, piglets were sampled before weaning (MF-Pigs). Mature gilts were transported from the GDU to 1 of 4 commercial breed-to-wean (BTW) farms, where samples were collected from gilts before entry and piglets before weaning. Four coordinated, multisite production systems, each consisting of 1 MF farm that includes both gilts and pigs to produce replacement female stock, 1 GDU farm to raise replacement female gilts from 3 to ≈26 weeks of age, and 4 BTW farms to raise pigs for meat, were selected to monitor the dynamics of IAV transmission in swine breeding herds. Systems are located across the United States. System 1’s MF and GDU sites are located in Illinois and its BTW sites in Georgia. Systems 2, 3, and 4 are located entirely in Illinois, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, respectively. Nasal swab samples were collected from pigs monthly during September 2012–September 2013 from each farm in all 4 systems. The animal type and time of sampling differed on the different farm types. On the MF and BTW farms, samples were collected from 30 piglets at ≈3 weeks of age and from 30 gilts. On the MFs, 30 gilts were sampled before entry to the farm. On the GDU farms, 30 animals at ≈26 weeks of age were sampled before movement to a BTW. In the BTWs, gilts were sampled before breeding (4–8 weeks after arrival) and piglets were sampled immediately before weaning (Figure 1). This strategy enabled assessment of IAV status before the movement of animals to the next stage of production. Laboratory methods are summarized in the Technical Appendix. During the 13-month period spanning September 2012–September 2013, a total of 14,954 swab samples were collected and tested for the presence of the IAV matrix gene by real-time reverse transcription PCR. Of the samples collected, 741 (5.0%) tested positive, which is consistent with previous surveillance studies (). Bivariate analysis found statistically significant correlations between infection and location in Illinois, GDU farm type, and system 2 (p<0.001 for all), but not for age (Table 1). We then constructed a logistic regression model that assessed the effect of age, system, location, and farm type on having a positive influenza result. Age was statistically significant by this model (p = 0.004); the odds ratio for piglets at weaning whose samples tested positive for IAV was 1.3 (95% CI 1.1–1.6) compared to that for gilts (Table 2), which is consistent with previous studies (). However, this finding could be related to interaction between age and state/system. System 2 again had higher odds of positive results (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.3) compared with system 1. MF pigs were found to have a lower risk for infection (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–0.9) and GDU pigs to have a higher risk for infection (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.1) when compared with BTW pigs. Finally, Illinois had higher odds for IAV infection (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.6–4.0) compared with the other 3 states.
Table 1

Epidemiologic data for influenza A virus among swine in coordinated swine production systems, United States, September 2012–September 2013*

VariableNo. samplesNo. (%) positive samples p value
State*
Georgia2,52073 (2.9)
Illinois4,490408 (9.1)<0.001
Nebraska3,894126 (3.2)
Oklahoma
4,050
134 (3.3)

Age group
Gilt8,028375 (4.7)0.85
Piglet
6,926
366 (5.3)

Farm type
MF, gilts†1,52667 (4.4)
MF, piglets1,55972 (4.6)
GDU1,455115 (7.9)<0.001
BTW
10,414
487 (4.7)

System
13,673142 (3.9)
23,337339 (10.2)<0.001
34,050134 (3.3)
43,894126 (3.2)

*Piglets were sampled before weaning; gilts were sampled at entry to MFs and before moving from GDUs to BTWs. MF, multiplier farm; GDU, gilt development unit; BTW, breed-to-wean.

Table 2

Correlation between age, state, farm type or production system, and influenza A virus status in swine in coordinated production systems, United States, September 2012–September 2013*

FactoraOR (95% CI)p value
Age group


Piglet vs. gilt
1.3 (1.1–1.6)
0.004
State


Illinois vs. Oklahoma
1.9 (1.4–2.6)
<0.001
Farm type
MF piglets vs. BTW0.7 (0.5–0.9)0.011
GDU vs. BTW
1.6 (1.2–2.1)
<0.001
System number


2 vs. 11.7 (1.3–2.3)<0.001

*Only statistically significant factors are shown; full analysis is provided in the Technical Appendix. aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; MF, multiplier farm; GDU, gilt development unit; BTW, breed-to-wean.

*Piglets were sampled before weaning; gilts were sampled at entry to MFs and before moving from GDUs to BTWs. MF, multiplier farm; GDU, gilt development unit; BTW, breed-to-wean. *Only statistically significant factors are shown; full analysis is provided in the Technical Appendix. aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; MF, multiplier farm; GDU, gilt development unit; BTW, breed-to-wean. IAV subtypes were determined for 25.2% of the IAV positive samples (Figure 2). All 3 common porcine influenza subtypes (H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2) were detected during the 13-month surveillance period. Increased prevalence of IAV was detected in piglets (MF pigs, GDU, BTW pigs) in all 4 systems, particularly in systems 1, 2, and 4, from winter to early summer (Figure 2, panels A, B, D), which is consistent with other studies (). Multiple subtype detection occurred only on BTW farms in system 2 (Figure 2, panel B).
Figure 2

Prevalence of influenza A virus by system, farm type, and month, United States, September 2012–September 2013, positive RNA nasal swab samples were categorized by age range (gilt, female pig 5–6 months of age or piglet, ≈3 weeks of age) and production point farm (multiplier farms [MF] Gilt, MF Pig, GDU, BTW Gilt, BTW Pig). Each circle depicts a month during which positive influenza samples were collected; percentage of positive swabs is listed above each circle. Influenza A subtypes are indicated by circle color: green, H1N1; blue, H1N2; red, H3N2; black, untyped. Multicolored circles indicate the detection of >1 subtype.

Prevalence of influenza A virus by system, farm type, and month, United States, September 2012–September 2013, positive RNA nasal swab samples were categorized by age range (gilt, female pig 5–6 months of age or piglet, ≈3 weeks of age) and production point farm (multiplier farms [MF] Gilt, MF Pig, GDU, BTW Gilt, BTW Pig). Each circle depicts a month during which positive influenza samples were collected; percentage of positive swabs is listed above each circle. Influenza A subtypes are indicated by circle color: green, H1N1; blue, H1N2; red, H3N2; black, untyped. Multicolored circles indicate the detection of >1 subtype.

Conclusions

We found that IAV infection was present at all stages of swine production within coordinated production systems. Animal age, geographic location, and type of farm affected risk for infection. We also found continuing virus circulation in all populations year round, although prevalence was higher from winter through early summer. To fully elucidate the factors that contribute to persistent IAV infection in swine farms and therefore develop evidence-based control strategies, further research is needed.

Technical Appendix

Logistic regression model of influenza A virus status among swine in coordinated production systems, USA, September 2012-September 2013.
  9 in total

Review 1.  Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses.

Authors:  R G Webster; W J Bean; O T Gorman; T M Chambers; Y Kawaoka
Journal:  Microbiol Rev       Date:  1992-03

2.  Infection dynamics of pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza virus in a two-site swine herd.

Authors:  M W Allerson; P R Davies; M R Gramer; M Torremorell
Journal:  Transbound Emerg Dis       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 5.005

3.  The epidemiology and evolution of influenza viruses in pigs.

Authors:  I H Brown
Journal:  Vet Microbiol       Date:  2000-05-22       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Human infections with influenza A(H3N2) variant virus in the United States, 2011-2012.

Authors:  Scott Epperson; Michael Jhung; Shawn Richards; Patricia Quinlisk; Lauren Ball; Mària Moll; Rachelle Boulton; Loretta Haddy; Matthew Biggerstaff; Lynnette Brammer; Susan Trock; Erin Burns; Thomas Gomez; Karen K Wong; Jackie Katz; Stephen Lindstrom; Alexander Klimov; Joseph S Bresee; Daniel B Jernigan; Nancy Cox; Lyn Finelli
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Transmissibility of variant influenza from Swine to humans: a modeling approach.

Authors:  Karen K Wong; Manoj Gambhir; Lyn Finelli; David L Swerdlow; Stephen Ostroff; Carrie Reed
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 9.079

6.  Emergence of a novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus in humans.

Authors:  Fatimah S Dawood; Seema Jain; Lyn Finelli; Michael W Shaw; Stephen Lindstrom; Rebecca J Garten; Larisa V Gubareva; Xiyan Xu; Carolyn B Bridges; Timothy M Uyeki
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Antigenic and genetic characteristics of swine-origin 2009 A(H1N1) influenza viruses circulating in humans.

Authors:  Rebecca J Garten; C Todd Davis; Colin A Russell; Bo Shu; Stephen Lindstrom; Amanda Balish; Wendy M Sessions; Xiyan Xu; Eugene Skepner; Varough Deyde; Margaret Okomo-Adhiambo; Larisa Gubareva; John Barnes; Catherine B Smith; Shannon L Emery; Michael J Hillman; Pierre Rivailler; James Smagala; Miranda de Graaf; David F Burke; Ron A M Fouchier; Claudia Pappas; Celia M Alpuche-Aranda; Hugo López-Gatell; Hiram Olivera; Irma López; Christopher A Myers; Dennis Faix; Patrick J Blair; Cindy Yu; Kimberly M Keene; P David Dotson; David Boxrud; Anthony R Sambol; Syed H Abid; Kirsten St George; Tammy Bannerman; Amanda L Moore; David J Stringer; Patricia Blevins; Gail J Demmler-Harrison; Michele Ginsberg; Paula Kriner; Steve Waterman; Sandra Smole; Hugo F Guevara; Edward A Belongia; Patricia A Clark; Sara T Beatrice; Ruben Donis; Jacqueline Katz; Lyn Finelli; Carolyn B Bridges; Michael Shaw; Daniel B Jernigan; Timothy M Uyeki; Derek J Smith; Alexander I Klimov; Nancy J Cox
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 8.  Influenza at the animal-human interface: a review of the literature for virological evidence of human infection with swine or avian influenza viruses other than A(H5N1).

Authors:  G S Freidl; A Meijer; E de Bruin; M de Nardi; O Munoz; I Capua; A C Breed; K Harris; A Hill; R Kosmider; J Banks; S von Dobschuetz; K Stark; B Wieland; K Stevens; S van der Werf; V Enouf; K van der Meulen; K Van Reeth; G Dauphin; M Koopmans
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2014-05-08

9.  Active surveillance for influenza A virus among swine, midwestern United States, 2009-2011.

Authors:  Cesar A Corzo; Marie Culhane; Kevin Juleen; Evelyn Stigger-Rosser; Mariette F Ducatez; Richard J Webby; James F Lowe
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 6.883

  9 in total
  13 in total

1.  Feral Swine in the United States Have Been Exposed to both Avian and Swine Influenza A Viruses.

Authors:  Brigitte E Martin; Hailiang Sun; Margaret Carrel; Fred L Cunningham; John A Baroch; Katie C Hanson-Dorr; Sean G Young; Brandon Schmit; Jacqueline M Nolting; Kyoung-Jin Yoon; Mark W Lutman; Kerri Pedersen; Kelly Lager; Andrew S Bowman; Richard D Slemons; David R Smith; Thomas DeLiberto; Xiu-Feng Wan
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Detection of Antigenic Variants of Subtype H3 Swine Influenza A Viruses from Clinical Samples.

Authors:  Brigitte E Martin; Andrew S Bowman; Lei Li; Jacqueline M Nolting; David R Smith; Larry A Hanson; Xiu-Feng Wan
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  The genomic evolution of H1 influenza A viruses from swine detected in the United States between 2009 and 2016.

Authors:  Shibo Gao; Tavis K Anderson; Rasna R Walia; Karin S Dorman; Alicia Janas-Martindale; Amy L Vincent
Journal:  J Gen Virol       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 3.891

4.  Individual-Level Antibody Dynamics Reveal Potential Drivers of Influenza A Seasonality in Wild Pig Populations.

Authors:  Kim M Pepin; Kerri Pedersen; Xiu-Feng Wan; Fred L Cunningham; Colleen T Webb; Mark Q Wilber
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.326

5.  Bioaerosol Sampling in Modern Agriculture: A Novel Approach for Emerging Pathogen Surveillance?

Authors:  Benjamin D Anderson; Mengmeng Ma; Yao Xia; Tao Wang; Bo Shu; John A Lednicky; Mai-Juan Ma; Jiahai Lu; Gregory C Gray
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 5.226

6.  A Heterogeneous Swine Show Circuit Drives Zoonotic Transmission of Influenza A Viruses in the United States.

Authors:  Martha I Nelson; Amanda Perofsky; Dillon S McBride; Benjamin L Rambo-Martin; Malania M Wilson; John R Barnes; Harm van Bakel; Zenab Khan; Jayeeta Dutta; Jacqueline M Nolting; Andrew S Bowman
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 5.103

7.  Complete Genome Sequencing of Influenza A Viruses within Swine Farrow-to-Wean Farms Reveals the Emergence, Persistence, and Subsidence of Diverse Viral Genotypes.

Authors:  Andres Diaz; Douglas Marthaler; Marie Culhane; Srinand Sreevatsan; Moh Alkhamis; Montserrat Torremorell
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 5.103

Review 8.  Epidemiological features of influenza circulation in swine populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Eugénie Baudon; Marisa Peyre; Malik Peiris; Benjamin John Cowling
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Influenza Herd-Level Prevalence and Seasonality in Breed-to-Wean Pig Farms in the Midwestern United States.

Authors:  Fabian Orlando Chamba Pardo; Ana Alba-Casals; Joel Nerem; Robert B Morrison; Pedro Puig; Montserrat Torremorell
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2017-10-11

10.  Prospective surveillance for influenza. virus in Chinese swine farms.

Authors:  Benjamin D Anderson; Mai-Juan Ma; Guo-Lin Wang; Zhen-Qiang Bi; Bing Lu; Xian-Jun Wang; Chuang-Xin Wang; Shan-Hui Chen; Yan-Hua Qian; Shao-Xia Song; Min Li; Teng Zhao; Meng-Na Wu; Laura K Borkenhagen; Wu-Chun Cao; Gregory C Gray
Journal:  Emerg Microbes Infect       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 7.163

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.