Charlie Cador1,2, Séverine Hervé3,4, Mathieu Andraud5,4, Stéphane Gorin3,4, Frédéric Paboeuf6,4, Nicolas Barbier3,4, Stéphane Quéguiner3,4, Céline Deblanc3,4, Gaëlle Simon3,4, Nicolas Rose5,4. 1. Swine Epidemiology and Welfare Research Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), BP 53, 22440, Ploufragan, France. charlie.cador@anses.fr. 2. Université Bretagne Loire, Rennes, France. charlie.cador@anses.fr. 3. Swine Virology Immunology Research Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), BP 53, 22440, Ploufragan, France. 4. Université Bretagne Loire, Rennes, France. 5. Swine Epidemiology and Welfare Research Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), BP 53, 22440, Ploufragan, France. 6. SPF Pig Production and Experimental Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), BP 53, 22440, Ploufragan, France.
Erratum to: Vet Res (2016) 47:86 DOI 10.1186/s13567-016-0365-6
After publication of the original article [1], the authors noticed an error in Table 2 in the “Results” section. In the last column the R0 estimated values have been reversed between groups. Consistently with the text, R0 is 5.8 [1.4–18.9] for MDA+ piglets (first row) and 14.8 [6.4–27.1] for MDA− piglets (second row). The corrected version of Table 2 is included in this erratum.
Table 2
Estimation of the reproduction numbers R
for MDA
and MDA
piglets using the best model (model 2)
Shedding period (days)
Direct transmission rate β (days−1)
Susceptibility factor σ
R0
MDA+ piglets
0.39 [0.21–0.70]
5.8 [1.4–18.9]
6.1 [5.9 – 6.4]a
2.43 [1.09 – 4.23]a
MDA− piglets
–
14.8 [6.4–27.1]
aOverall population estimate applying to both groups.
Estimation of the reproduction numbers R
for MDA
and MDA
piglets using the best model (model 2)aOverall population estimate applying to both groups.
Authors: Charlie Cador; Séverine Hervé; Mathieu Andraud; Stéphane Gorin; Frédéric Paboeuf; Nicolas Barbier; Stéphane Quéguiner; Céline Deblanc; Gaëlle Simon; Nicolas Rose Journal: Vet Res Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 3.683