4.6 Article

Porcine circovirus 3 (PCV-3) as a causal agent of disease in swine and a proposal of PCV-3 associated disease case definition

期刊

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 2936-2948

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14204

关键词

case definition; disease causality; porcine circovirus 3 (PCV-3); reproductive disease; systemic disease

资金

  1. INIA Project from the Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (Spanish Government) [E-RTA2017-00007-00-00]
  2. CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PCV-3 was discovered in 2015 and has been detected worldwide in pigs with various outcomes. While many studies suggest PCV-3 as a potential pathogen, strong evidence of its causality is still lacking, requiring further research to establish clear connections.
Porcine circovirus 3 (PCV-3) was discovered in 2015 using next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods. Since then, the virus has been detected worldwide in pigs displaying several clinical-pathological outcomes as well as in healthy animals. The objective of this review is to critically discuss the evidence existing so far regarding PCV-3 as a swine pathogen. In fact, a significant number of publications claim PCV-3 as a disease causal infectious agent, but very few of them have shown strong evidence of such potential causality. The most convincing proofs of disease association are those that demonstrate a clinical picture linked to multisystemic lymphoplasmacytic to lymphohistiocytic perivascular inflammation and presence of viral nucleic acid within these lesions. Based on these evidence, individual case definitions for PCV-3-reproductive disease and PCV-3-systemic disease are proposed to standardize diagnostic criteria for PCV-3-associated diseases. However, the real frequency of these clinical-pathological conditions linked to the novel virus is unknown, and the most frequent outcome of PCV-3 infection is likely subclinical based on its worlwide distribution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据