4.5 Article

Prevalence of antibodies to European porcine influenza viruses in humans living in high pig density areas of Germany

Journal

MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 203, Issue 1, Pages 13-24

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00430-013-0309-y

Keywords

Swine; Influenza; Zoonosis; Human; Haemagglutination inhibition assay

Funding

  1. Robert Koch Institute [FKZ 1362/1-981]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The risk of zoonotic human infection caused by European porcine influenza virus strains was estimated in German regions with a high pig density. Sera from 622 healthy volunteers were collected between April 2009 and November 2011, mainly in Westphalia and western Lower Saxony. These included 362 subjects with occupational contact to pigs and 260 blood donors without any direct exposition to pigs. Samples were analysed by the haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay against a panel of six swine viruses of subtypes avian-like H1N1 and human-like H3N2 as well as against human H1N1 and H3N2 viruses including the pandemic H1N1 strain of 2009. Reciprocal HI titres a parts per thousand yen20 were quoted as seroreactive. Compared to the control group, a significantly higher proportion of subjects with direct contact to pigs exhibited seroreactivity against porcine antigens of the avian-like H1N1 (37.0 %/7.7 %), the human-like H3N2 (59.7 %/43.1 %), the pandemic H1N1 strain of 2009 (51.7 %/26.5 %) and against a historic seasonal H3N2 strain that is closely related antigenetically to currently circulating human-like H3N2 viruses of European pigs (57.5 %/36.5 %). This trend was also observed when a reciprocal HI titre a parts per thousand yen40 was chosen as cut-off. Particularly, in younger subjects, the differences in seroreactivity against porcine strains between the exposed and non-exposed group were significant. The data indicate a higher risk of infection in the exposed individuals.

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