4.7 Article

Suitability of faeces and tissue samples as a basis for non-invasive sampling for African swine fever in wild boar

Journal

VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 172, Issue 3-4, Pages 449-454

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2014.06.016

Keywords

African swine fever virus; Faeces; Tissues; Monitoring; PCR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A challenging aspect of ASFV control in wild boar populations is the design and implementation of effective surveillance and monitoring programmes, both for early warning, and to determine the ongoing epidemiological situation in an infected population. Testing blood samples requires invasive sampling strategies like hunting or capture of wild boar. Besides being biased towards healthy animals, such strategies are also linked to further spread of the virus. Non-invasive sampling strategies would increase the reliability of surveillance of ASFV in wild boar populations, without the negative side effects. This study evaluates the potential of faeces and tissue samples as a basis for non-invasive sampling strategies for ASFV in wild boar. In the acute phase (0-21 days after infection), in comparison with virus detection in blood, virus can be detected in faeces 50-80% of the time. This percentage decreases to below 10% for the subacute/chronic phase. ASFV DNA is quite stable in faeces. Half-lives range from more than 2 years at temperature up to 12 degrees C, to roughly 15 days at temperatures of 30 degrees C. In tissue samples, stored at 20 degrees C, half-lives mostly range from 1.7 to 7.4 days. The sample of preference is the spleen, where the highest titres and highest half-life of ASFV DNA are observed. The level and duration of excretion of ASFV in the faeces, combined with the stability of the DNA, suggest that sampling of faeces could be the basis for a non-invasive sampling strategy to monitor ASFV in wild boar. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available