| Literature DB >> 26695404 |
Talita Pilar Resende1, Carlos Eduardo Real Pereira2, Michelle de Paula Gabardo3, João Paulo Amaral Haddad4, Zélia Inês Portela Lobato5, Roberto Maurício Carvalho Guedes6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lawsonia intracellularis is the etiologic agent of proliferative enteropathy, which causes diarrhea in several animal species, including swine. Serology can be used both to determine the prevalence of antibodies against a specific pathogen in a herd and to obtain the serological profile, which is used to determine the dynamics of infection in the herd. The objective of this study was to determine the serological profile and seroprevalence of anti-L. intracellularis antibodies in swine herds from intensive production regions of Minas Gerais, Brazil, and to identify the risk factors related to the herd-level seropositivity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26695404 PMCID: PMC4688965 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-015-0618-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Serological profile for L. intracellularis antibodies in swine herds from Minas Gerais state, Brazil. The bars indicate the standard error for the prevalence in each category
Seroprevalence of anti-L. intracellularis antibodies. Seroprevalence results in the four major regions of intensive swine production in Minas Gerais, Brazil, and for the total samples
| Region | Number of sampled herds | Seroprevalence | Standard Error | CI 95 % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. | Max. | ||||
| MBH | 7 | 37.66 % | 2.37 % | 33.13 % | 42.41 % |
| ZM | 8 | 32.85 % | 1.97 % | 29.11 % | 36.83 % |
| SSO | 9 | 32.06 % | 2.58 % | 27.22 % | 37.31 % |
| TAP | 6 | 35.59 % | 2.26 % | 31.29 % | 40.15 % |
| Total | 30 | 34.66 % | 1.29 % | 32.12 % | 37.20 % |
MBH-Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte; ZM-Zona da Mata; SSO-South/South West of Minas Gerais; TAP-Triangulo Mineiro/Alto Paranaíba. CI - confidence interval
Seroprevalence in each category of the swine production cycle
| Region | Category | Seroprevalence | Standard error | CI 95 % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. | Max. | ||||
| MBH | Sows/gilts cA | 40.68 % | 5.11 % | 31.15 % | 50.98 % |
| Pre-weaning piglets aAB | 40.74 % | 5.12 % | 31.19 % | 51.05 % | |
| Nursery piglets bA | 15.95 % | 3.89 % | 9.69 % | 25.13 % | |
| Growing pigs cA | 11.98 % | 3.21 % | 6.96 % | 19.84 % | |
| Finishing pigs dA | 88.22 % | 2.93 % | 81.16 % | 92.87 % | |
| SSO | Sows/gilts cA | 31.34 % | 5.38 % | 21.83 % | 42.72 % |
| Pre-weaning piglets aC | 12.23 % | 3.32 % | 7.06 % | 20.35 % | |
| Nursery piglets bB | 3.18 % | 2.16 % | 0.82 % | 11.50 % | |
| Growing pigs cA | 36.15 % | 5.36 % | 26.41 % | 47.17 % | |
| Finishing pigs dAB | 65.81 % | 4.43 % | 56.68 % | 73.90 % | |
| ZM | Sows/gilts dB | 19.46 % | 3.45 % | 13.56 % | 27.13 % |
| Pre-weaning piglets aBC | 23.85 % | 3.79 % | 17.21 % | 32.06 % | |
| Mursery piglets bC | 9.91 % | 2.62 % | 5.82 % | 16.38 % | |
| Growing pigs adB | 20.45 % | 3.34 % | 14.66 % | 27.78 % | |
| Finishingattening pigs cC | 81.92 % | 3.45 % | 74.16 % | 87.74 % | |
| TAP | Sows/gilts cB | 49.65 % | 4.93 % | 40.10 % | 59.22 % |
| Pre-weaning piglets aA | 28.59 % | 4.55 % | 20.55 % | 38.27 % | |
| Nursery piglets bAB | 14.01 % | 3.37 % | 8.60 % | 22.01 % | |
| Growing pigs cA | 26.83 % | 4.41 % | 19.08 % | 36.32 % | |
| Finishing pigs dBC | 65.85 % | 4.60 % | 56.33 % | 74.23 % | |
| Total | Sows/gilts d | 36.61 % | 2.75 % | 31.40 % | 42.15 % |
| Pre-weaning piglets a | 27.43 % | 2.58 % | 22.66 % | 32.78 % | |
| Nursery piglets b | 12.14 % | 1.88 % | 8.91 % | 16.33 % | |
| Growing pigs a | 23.25 % | 2.41 % | 18.87 % | 28.30 % | |
| Finishing pigs c | 74.28 % | 2.50 % | 69.08 % | 78.88 % | |
Different lower case letters indicate the significant differences for categories in the same region and different capital letters indicate the significant differences for categories between regions. MBH-Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte; ZM-Zona da Mata; SSO-South/South West of Minas Gerais; TAP-Triangulo Mineiro/Alto Paranaíba; CI - confidence interval
Linear regression results for risk factors. Only the “cleaning before disinfecting” showed a significant association to the L. intracelularis herd level seropositivity
| Variable |
| Regression coefficient | CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard error | min | max | |||
| Newborn assistance at farrow and piglets’ first colostrum intake | 0.22 | 0.17 | 0.14 | −0.11 | 0.45 |
| Cross fostering management | 0.12 | -.0.70 | 0.05 | −0.17 | 0.03 |
| Cleaning before disinfection | 0.01 | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.07 | −0.01 |
| Number of disinfectants used | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.04 | −0.07 | 0.09 |
CI – Confidence interval