| Literature DB >> 27050556 |
Korakrit Poonsuk1, Luis Gabriel Giménez-Lirola1, Jianqiang Zhang1, Paolo Arruda1, Qi Chen1, Lucas Correa da Silva Carrion1, Ronaldo Magtoto1, Pablo Pineyro1, Luciana Sarmento1, Chong Wang1,2, Yaxuan Sun1,2, Darin Madson1, John Johnson1, Kyoung-Jin Yoon1, Jeffrey Zimmerman1, Rodger Main1.
Abstract
The contribution of circulating antibody to the protection of naïve piglets against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) was evaluated using a passive antibody transfer model. Piglets (n = 62) derived from 6 sows were assigned to one of 6 different treatments using a randomized block design which provided for allocation of all treatments to all sows' litters. Each treatment was designed to achieve a different level of circulating anti-PEDV antibody via intraperitoneally administration of concentrated serum antibody. Piglets were orally inoculated with PEDV (USA/IN/2013/19338E, 1 x 103 TCID50 per piglet) 24 hours later and then monitored for 14 days. Piglets remained with their dam throughout the experiment. Sow milk samples, piglet fecal samples, and data on piglet clinical signs, body weight, and body temperature were collected daily. Fecal samples were tested by PEDV real-time reverse transcriptase PCR. Serum, colostrum, and milk were tested for PEDV IgG, IgA, and virus-neutralizing antibody. The data were evaluated for the effects of systemic PEDV antibody levels on growth, body temperature, fecal shedding, survival, and antibody response. The analysis showed that circulating antibody partially ameliorated the effect of PEDV infection. Specifically, antibody-positive groups returned to normal body temperature faster and demonstrated a higher rate of survivability than piglets without PEDV antibody. When combined with previous literature on PEDV, it can be concluded that both systemic antibodies and maternal secretory IgA in milk contribute to the protection of the neonatal pig against PEDV infections. Overall, the results of this experiment suggested that passively administered circulating antibodies contributed to the protection of neonatal piglets against PEDV infection.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27050556 PMCID: PMC4822964 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153041
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Allocation of piglets to treatments by litter.
| Litter | Age (days) at time of treatment | No. of piglets | Groups (no. piglets within treatment) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |||
| 1 | 5 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 4 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 5 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 6 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Totals | 74 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 | |
a Piglets were assigned to treatment using randomized block design whereby all treatments were assigned to each litter.
b Treatment 1 piglets served as negative controls. Piglets in treatments 2 to 6 were administered increasing levels of antibody (see Table 2).
c Litter 7 was excluded from the study because the sow was agalactic.
Serum antibody levels among treatment groups by day post inoculation.
| Assay | Group | Day post inoculation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -4 | 0 | 14 | ||
| 1 | <1:8 (4.6) | <1:8 (4.6) | 1:64 (6.1) | |
| 2 | <1:8 (4.6) | 1:5.3 (4.6) | 1:19.7 (4.9) | |
| FFN arithmetic mean (SE) | 3 | <1:8 (4.6) | 1:6.1 (4.6) | 1:19.7 (4.9) |
| 4 | <1:8 (4.6) | 1:8.0 (4.6) | 1:32.0 (5.3) | |
| 5 | <1:8 (4.6) | 1:17.1 (4.6) | 1:11.3 (4.9) | |
| 6 | <1:8 (4.6) | 1:32.0 (4.6) | 1:16.0 (5.3) | |
| 1 | 0.5 (0.2) | 0.2 (0.2) | 2.2 (0.4) | |
| 2 | 0.7 (0.2) | 0.7 (0.2) | 2.0 (0.2) | |
| PEDV IgA ELISA least square mean S/P (SE) | 3 | 0.6 (0.2) | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.9 (0.3) |
| 4 | 0.6 (0.2) | 1.8 (0.2) | 1.3 (0.3) | |
| 5 | 0.6 (0.2) | 2.8 (0.2) | 1.2 (0.2) | |
| 6 | 0.7 (0.2) | 3.3 (0.2) | 1.4 (0.3) | |
| 1 | 0.6 (0.1) | 0.5 (0.1) | 1.7 (0.2) | |
| 2 | 0.7 (0.1) | 0.7 (0.1) | 1.0 (0.1) | |
| PEDV IgG ELISA least square mean S/P (SE) | 3 | 0.7 (0.1) | 0.7 (0.1) | 1.5 (0.2) |
| 4 | 0.7 (0.1) | 0.8 (0.1) | 1.3 (0.2) | |
| 5 | 0.7 (0.1) | 1.1 (0.1) | 1.0 (0.1) | |
| 6 | 0.7 (0.1) | 1.4 (0.1) | 0.9 (0.2) | |
a24 hours following intraperitoneal administration of concentrated PEDV antibody
bSignificantly different from Group One (Wilcoxon rank test, p < 0.02)
Fig 1Anti-PEDV IgA in milk (standard deviation upper and lower bounds) based on daily samplings and mean number of piglets per litter (n = 6) over time post inoculation.
No significant difference in survival was detected among the 6 litters (Kruskal-Wallis test).
Fig 2Treatment responses following inoculation of piglets with porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (USA/IN/2013/19338E).
Treatment 1 piglets served as antibody-negative controls; piglets in treatments 2 to 6 had increasing levels of circulating anti-PEDV antibody. aAdjusted PEDV rRT-PCR quantification cycle (Cq) = (35 –sample Cq).