4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Design and analysis of an Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae transmission experiment

Journal

PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE
Volume 60, Issue 1, Pages 53-68

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-5877(03)00082-5

Keywords

transmission experiment; estimation method; R-0; transmission; Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae; susceptibility; infectivity; quantification

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes a methodology to quantify the transmission of Actinobacillus (A.) pleuropneumoniae from subclinically infected carrier pigs to susceptible contact pigs, and to test the effect of possible interventions on the transmission. The methodology includes the design of a transmission experiment, and a method with which A. pleuropneumoniae transmission can be quantified and with which the effect of an intervention on the transmission can be tested. The experimental design consists of two parts. First, subclinically infected carrier pigs are created by contact exposure of specific-pathogen-free pigs to endobronchially inoculated pigs. Second, transmission is observed from the group of carrier pigs to a second group of susceptible contact pigs after replacing the inoculated pigs by new contact pigs. The presented analytical method is a generalised linear model (GLM) with which the effect of an intervention on the susceptibility and infectivity can be tested separately, if the transmission is observed in heterogeneous populations. The concept of the experimental transmission model is illustrated by describing an A. pleuropneumoniae transmission experiment in which the effect of vaccination on the susceptibility is quantified. Although it could not be demonstrated that vaccination has an effect on the susceptibility of pigs, it was demonstrated that nasal excretion of A. pleuropneumoniae is related to the infectivity of pigs. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available