| Literature DB >> 35056864 |
Mariana Santos-Rivera1, Amelia R Woolums2, Merrilee Thoresen2, Florencia Meyer1, Carrie K Vance1.
Abstract
Bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) is a major contributor to respiratory disease in cattle worldwide. Traditionally, BRSV infection is detected based on non-specific clinical signs, followed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the results of which can take days to obtain. Near-infrared aquaphotomics evaluation based on biochemical information from biofluids has the potential to support the rapid identification of BRSV infection in the field. This study evaluated NIR spectra (n = 240) of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) from dairy calves (n = 5) undergoing a controlled infection with BRSV. Changes in the organization of the aqueous phase of EBC during the baseline (pre-infection) and infected (post-infection and clinically abnormal) stages were found in the WAMACS (water matrix coordinates) C1, C5, C9, and C11, likely associated with volatile and non-volatile compounds in EBC. The discrimination of these chemical profiles by PCA-LDA models differentiated samples collected during the baseline and infected stages with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity >93% in both the calibration and validation. Thus, biochemical changes occurring during BRSV infection can be detected and evaluated with NIR-aquaphotomics in EBC. These findings form the foundation for developing an innovative, non-invasive, and in-field diagnostic tool to identify BRSV infection in cattle.Entities:
Keywords: NIRS; absorbance; biofluid; cattle; chemometrics; discrimination; transmittance; virus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35056864 PMCID: PMC8779643 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27020549
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Timeline for the BRSV controlled challenge carried out in five dairy calves. The stars point out the days of the EBC collection.
Figure 2NIR absorbance from bovine EBC collected before and after BRSV infection. (a) Raw or unprocessed NIR absorbance from baseline (n = 100) and infected (n = 100) stages relative to infection, showing the characteristic water spectral pattern. (b) Transformed or processed absorbance from baseline (n = 100) and infected (n = 100) stages displaying two prominent features at 1376 and 1424 nm. (c) PCA scores plot for samples of the baseline and infected stages from all the calves (n = 5) challenged in this study (n = 200). (d) PCA loadings showing the dominant peaks influencing the positive and negative trends in the scores plot: PC-1 = 81%, PC-2 = 12%, PC-3 = 4%.
Figure 3Aquaphotomics of EBC from dairy calves infected with BRSV. (a) Normalized absorbance for samples from the baseline (n = 100) and infected (n = 100) stages from all the calves (n = 5) challenged in this study. (b) Aquagram created with the key WABS from the baseline stage. (c) WAMACS barcode showing chemical shifts.
PCA-LDA for transformed absorbance (1300–1600 nm) classification and quality parameters for bovine EBC collected before and after the BRSV challenge.
| Model | # Selected PCs | % Explained Variance | Category and Quality | % PCA-LDA Mahalanobis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cal 80% | Val 20% | External Validation | ||||
| 1 | 8 | 99.8 | baseline | 64/64 | 16/16 | 7/20 |
| infected | 64/64 | 16/16 | 9/20 | |||
| % Accuracy | 100 | 100 | 40 | |||
| % Sensitivity | 100 | 100 | 45 | |||
| % Specificity | 100 | 100 | 35 | |||
| 2 | 9 | 99.9 | baseline | 64/64 | 16/16 | 16/20 |
| infected | 64/64 | 16/16 | 20/20 | |||
| % Accuracy | 100 | 100 | 90 | |||
| % Sensitivity | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| % Specificity | 100 | 100 | 80 | |||
| 3 | 7 | 99.6 | baseline | 64/64 | 16/16 | 18/20 |
| infected | 64/64 | 15/16 | 10/20 | |||
| % Accuracy | 100 | 97 | 70 | |||
| % Sensitivity | 100 | 94 | 50 | |||
| % Specificity | 100 | 100 | 90 | |||
| 4 | 5 | 98.9 | baseline | 54/64 | 10/16 | 17/20 |
| infected | 59/64 | 16/16 | 20/20 | |||
| % Accuracy | 86 | 81 | 93 | |||
| % Sensitivity | 92 | 100 | 100 | |||
| % Specificity | 80 | 63 | 85 | |||
| 5 | 8 | 99.9 | baseline | 63/64 | 16/16 | 18/20 |
| infected | 64/64 | 16/16 | 12/20 | |||
| % Accuracy | 99 | 100 | 75 | |||
| % Sensitivity | 100 | 100 | 60 | |||
| % Specificity | 98 | 100 | 90 | |||
| Mean ± SD | 7 ± 2 | 99.6 ± 0.4 | % Accuracy | 97 ± 6 (a) | 96 ± 8 (a,b) | 74 ± 21 (b) |
| % Sensitivity | 98 ± 4 (a) | 99 ± 3 (a) | 71 ± 27 (b) | |||
| % Specificity | 96 ± 9 (a) | 93 ± 17 (a) | 76 ± 23 (a) | |||
Values with different letters were significantly different (p < 0.05) between the calibration (Cal 80%), the internal validation (Val 20%), and the external validation. No significant differences were detected in the prediction values between models after applying ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer HSD (honestly significant difference).
Figure 4PCA-LDA plot for the calibration of Model 4 developed with the transformed absorbance (1300–1600 nm) from EBC collected before and after the BRSV challenge.