| Literature DB >> 35692039 |
Matteo Tonni1, Nicoletta Formenti2, M Beatrice Boniotti2, Flavia Guarneri2, Federico Scali2, Claudia Romeo2, Paolo Pasquali3, Maria Pieters4, Dominiek Maes5, Giovanni L Alborali2.
Abstract
Little is known about how co-infections and genotype dynamics affect Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae infection in fattening pigs. This study was aimed at assessing the role of co-infections in M. hyopneumoniae outbreaks, their influence on the presence of M. hyopneumoniae genotypes and their impact on consequent lung lesions. Tracheobronchial swabs (TBS) from 300 finishers were collected from 10 farms at the onset of enzootic pneumonia outbreaks and 1 month later, sampling of 3 groups per farm: Group A showed clinical signs first, Group B was housed near Group A, and Group C was located in a different building. Pigs' lungs were scored at the slaughterhouse. TBS were tested for the main pathogens involved in respiratory diseases, and samples positive for M. hyopneumoniae were genotyped by multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA). Pigs in Group A showed the highest prevalence and load of M. hyopneumoniae. A positive association was detected between M. hyopneumoniae and Mycoplasma hyorhinis, whereas Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae was more frequent when the M. hyopneumoniae load was higher. Nevertheless, co-infection had no effect on lung lesion scores. The presence of multiple MLVA types (mixed infections) increased in time only in pigs from Group C and was positively associated with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection. Lung lesions were more severe in pigs with at least one TBS positive for M. hyopneumoniae and in pigs with a history of mixed infections. The central role of M. hyopneumoniae and relevance of mixed infections suggest that increased biosecurity might be beneficial for lung lesion sequelae.Entities:
Keywords: Multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis; Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae; fattening pigs; swine; variable-number tandem repeat type
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35692039 PMCID: PMC9190078 DOI: 10.1186/s13567-022-01061-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Res ISSN: 0928-4249 Impact factor: 3.829
Description of the ten fattening pig herds included in the study
| Farm | Herd Size (Nb of pigs) | Enrolled pigs | Age of pigs at T0 (days) | Age at slaughtering | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4000 | 30 | 1 | 131 | 245 |
| 2 | 4800 | 30 | 1 | 153 | 250 |
| 3 | 10 000 | 30 | 1 | 176 | 270 |
| 4 | 1500 | 30 | 1 | 204 | 280 |
| 5 | 3200 | 30 | 1 | 158 | 255 |
| 6 | 2300 | 30 | 2 | 238 | 265 |
| 7 | 3900 | 30 | 2 | 143 | 280 |
| 8 | 5300 | 30 | 2 | 232 | 275 |
| 9 | 1500 | 30 | 1 | 206 | 265 |
| 10 | 4500 | 30 | 2 | 124 | 255 |
* Vaccination strategies were resumed in 1 (single shot at 20–28 days) or 2 (double shots before and after weaning).
T0: onset of clinical signs during the EP outbreak.
Respiratory infections in heavy-fattening pigs: prevalence (% of infected animals/examined animals) at T0 and T1 and incidence (% of infected animals/susceptible animals) at T1 in Group A (N = 100, N = 99), Group B (N = 100, N = 99) and Group C (N = 100, N = 88)
| Infection | Group | T0 | T1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P (%) | 95% CI (%) | P (%) | 95% CI (%) | I (%) | 95% CI (%) | ||
| A | 85.0 | 77.9–92.1 | 86.9 | 80.1–93.6 | 26.7 | 4.3–49.0 | |
| B | 82.0 | 74.3–89.7 | 73.7 | 64.9–82.6 | 27.8 | 7.1–48.5 | |
| C | 62.0 | 52.3–71.7 | 61.4 | 51.0–71.7 | 29.7 | 15.0–44.5 | |
| A | 27.0 | 18.1–35.8 | 24.2 | 15.6–32.8 | 23.3 | 13.6–33.0 | |
| B | 19.0 | 11.2–26.8 | 20.2 | 12.1–28.2 | 22.2 | 13.2–31.3 | |
| C | 22.0 | 13.7–30.3 | 14.8 | 7.2–22.3 | 12.3 | 4.8–19.9 | |
| A | 40.0 | 30.2–49.8 | 55.6 | 45.6–65.5 | 50.8 | 38.1–63.6 | |
| B | 28.0 | 19.0–36.9 | 56.6 | 46.6–66.5 | 52.1 | 40.5–63.7 | |
| C | 31.0 | 21.8–40.2 | 40.9 | 30.4–51.4 | 31.7 | 19.9–43.4 | |
| A | 67.0 | 57.6–76.4 | 64.6 | 55.1–74.2 | 59.4 | 42.4–76.4 | |
| B | 64.0 | 54.4–73.6 | 59.6 | 49.7–69.4 | 54.3 | 37.8–70.8 | |
| C | 55.0 | 45.1–64.9 | 45.4 | 34.8–56.1 | 35.7 | 21.2–50.2 | |
| A | 52.0 | 42.0–62.0 | 8.1 | 2.6–13.5 | 4.2 | 0–9.8 | |
| B | 7.0 | 1.9–12.1 | 36.4 | 26.7–46.0 | 35.9 | 26.1–45.7 | |
| C | 5.0 | 0.6–9.3 | 22.7 | 13.8–31.6 | 22.9 | 13.8–31.9 | |
| PCV2 | A | 11.0 | 4.8–17.2 | 8.1 | 2.6–13.5 | 0 | – |
| B | 9.0 | 3.3–14.7 | 7.1 | 1.9–12.2 | 0 | – | |
| C | 8.0 | 2.6–13.4 | 10.2 | 3.8–16.7 | 1.7 | 0–5.9 | |
| PRRSV | A | 11.0 | 4.8–17.2 | 2.0 | 0–4.8 | 1.1 | 0–3.3 |
| B | 6.0 | 1.3–10.7 | 1.0 | 0–3.0 | 1.0 | 0–3.2 | |
| C | 3.0 | 0–6.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | – | |
| SwIAV | A | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| B | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
| C | 2.0 | 0–4.8 | 0 | – | 0 | – | |
Minimal models exploring factors affecting variation in infection status, ln-transformed no. of copies and VNTR types in pigs
| Response variable | Explanatory variable | Parameter estimate ± SE | Statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groupb | A | 2.67 ± 0.55 | χ22 = 32.8 | ||
| B | 1.98 ± 0.47 | ||||
| Timec | T1 | 0.37 ± 0.33 | χ21 = 0.25 | 0.62 | |
infection statusd | Infected | 0.58 ± 0.27 | χ21 = 4.59 | ||
| Infected | −0.71 ± 0.33 | χ21 = 4.49 | |||
| Group:Timeb, c | Group A: T1 | −0.42 ± 0.61 | χ22 = 4.01 | 0.13 | |
| Group B: T1 | −1.01 ± 0.50 | ||||
| Groupb | A | 3.45 ± 0.54 | F2, 425 = 19.7 | ||
| B | 2.04 ± 0.55 | ||||
| Timec | T1 | 0.03 ± 0.59 | F1, 425 = 14.7 | ||
infection statusd | Infected | 1.11 ± 0.33 | F1, 425 = 11.2 | ||
| Infected | 0.65 ± 0.40 | F1, 425 = 2.70 | 0.10 | ||
| Group:Timeb, c | Group A: T1 | −1.84 ± 0.75 | F2, 425 = 3.48 | ||
| Group B: T1 | −1.74 ± 0.77 | ||||
| Groupb | A | −1.73 ± 0.51 | χ22 = 1.02 | 0.60 | |
| B | −1.18 ± 0.49 | ||||
| Timec | T1 | 2.41 ± 0.59 | χ21 = 9.20 | ||
PRRSV infection statusd | Infected | 1.13 ± 0.56 | χ21 = 4.09 | ||
| Group:Timeb, c | Group A: T1 | −2.54 ± 0.70 | χ22 = 13.42 | ||
| Group B: T1 | −2.13 ± 0.71 |
In all the models, pig IDs and farm IDs were included as random intercepts.
†mixed logistic regression; * linear mixed model; a only positive animals; b Group C held as reference; c T0 held as reference; d not-infected held as reference.
Figure 1co-infections in fattening pigs. Prevalence of other respiratory infections in pigs infected (dark bars, n = 442) and not infected (white bars, n = 144) by M. hyopneumoniae. Bars indicate 95% Confidence Intervals. Asterisks indicate significance level at p < 0.05 in the mixed logistic regression model.
Differences of least square means by time and group in no. of copies (ln-transformed) in samples ( = 442) from infected pigs
| Time | Group | Estimate ± SE | t425 | padj |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | A vs B | 1.41 ± 0.47 | 2.83 | 0.055 |
| A vs C | 3.45 ± 0.54 | 6.37 | ||
| B vs C | 2.04 ± 0.55 | 3.72 | ||
| T1 | A vs B | 1.31 ± 0.51 | 2.54 | 0.11 |
| A vs C | 1.61 ± 0.57 | 2.82 | 0.056 | |
| B vs C | 0.30 ± 0.58 | 0.51 | 0.99 | |
| T1 vs T0 | A | −1.81 ± 0.47 | −3.84 | |
| B | −1.71 ± 0.50 | −3.40 | ||
| C | 0.03 ± 0.59 | 0.06 | 0.95 |
Figure 2Dynamics of mixed infections in fattening pigs. Prevalence of M. hyopneumoniae mixed infections (i.e. showing multiple VNTR genotypes) in positive pigs at T0 (light bars) and T1 (dark bars) per experimental group. Error bars indicate 95% Confidence Intervals. Asterisks indicate significance level at padj < 0.001 in t-tests on differences of least squares means.
Severity of lesions based on the lung lesion score according to the Madec and Kobish method [18]
| Magnitude of lesion | P (%) | 95% CI (%) |
|---|---|---|
| No lesiona | 32.1 | 26.6–37.5 |
| Mild lesionsb | 26.0 | 21.3–31.6 |
| Severe lesionsc | 23.3 | 18.4–8.3 |
| Very severe lesionsd | 18.1 | 13.6–22.6 |
Data refer to all 10 farms for a total of 287 scored pigs.
aScore = 0; b score 1–4; c score 5–9; d score ≥ 10.