The effect of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus challenge on growing pigs II: Intestinal integrity and function.

The objective of this study was to determine if intestinal function and integrity is altered due to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus and porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) virus infection in growing pigs. Forty-two gilts (16.8 ± 0.6 kg BW), naïve for PRRS and PED, were selected and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) a control (CON; = 6), 2) PRRS virus challenge only (PRRS; = 12), 3) PED virus challenge only (; = 12), or 4) coinfection of PRRS + PED viruses (PRP; = 12). Treatments 2 and 4 were inoculated with a live field strain of PRRS virus on d 0 after inoculation. Treatments 3 and 4 were inoculated with PED virus on 14 d after inoculation (dpi) and all pigs were euthanized 7 d later (21 dpi). Infection with PRRS virus was determined by viremia and seroconversion. Fecal quantitative PCR was used to confirm PED virus infection. Control pigs remained PRRS and PED virus negative throughout the study. Compared with the CON, intestinal morphology was unaffected by PRRS. As expected, PED and PRP treatments resulted in duodenum, jejunum, and ileum villus atrophy compared with the CON treatment ( < 0.01). Ex vivo transepithelial electrical resistance (TER) did not differ between CON and PRRS pigs (P < 0.05) but was reduced by 40% in PED alone ( < 0.01). Interestingly, TER was increased ( < 0.01) in the PRP pigs. Active transport of glucose was increased in PRRS pigs over CON pigs ( < 0.01), whereas PED had pigs increased ( < 0.01) active glutamine transport over the CON pigs. Jejunum GLUT2 mRNA abundance and sucrase, maltase, and Na+/K+ adenosine triphosphatase activities tended to be increased in PRRS pigs compared with CON pigs ( < 0.06). The jejunum AA transporter, SLC6A14, and mucin 2 mRNA abundance tended to be increased in PED-only pigs ( < 0.10). These data suggest that PRRS infection supports a higher affinity for glucose uptake, whereas PED favors glutamine uptake. Interestingly, digestive machinery during PED challenge remained intact. Altogether, PED but not PRRS challenges alter intestinal morphology and integrity in growing pigs.