4.6 Article

Detection of Foot-and-mouth Disease Virus RNA and Capsid Protein in Lymphoid Tissues of Convalescent Pigs Does Not Indicate Existence of a Carrier State

期刊

TRANSBOUNDARY AND EMERGING DISEASES
卷 63, 期 2, 页码 152-164

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tbed.12235

关键词

foot-and-mouth disease; FMD; FMDV; virus; persistence; carriers; pigs

资金

  1. National Pork Board, USA (NPB) [11-174]
  2. Plum Island Animal Disease Center Research Participation Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic study was performed to investigate the potential of pigs to establish and maintain persistent foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) infection. Infectious virus could not be recovered from sera, oral, nasal or oropharyngeal fluids obtained after resolution of clinical infection with any of five FMDV strains within serotypes A, O and Asia-1. Furthermore, there was no isolation of live virus from tissue samples harvested at 28-100 days post-infection from convalescent pigs recovered from clinical or subclinical FMD. Despite lack of detection of infectious FMDV, there was a high prevalence of FMDV RNA detection in lymph nodes draining lesion sites harvested at 35 days post-infection, with the most frequent detection recorded in popliteal lymph nodes (positive detection in 88% of samples obtained from non-vaccinated pigs). Likewise, at 35 dpi, FMDV capsid antigen was localized within follicles of draining lymph nodes, but without concurrent detection of FMDV non-structural protein. There was a marked decline in the detection of FMDV RNA and antigen in tissue samples by 60 dpi, and no antigen or viral RNA could be detected in samples obtained at 100 dpi. The data presented herein provide the most extensive investigation of FMDV persistence in pigs. The overall conclusion is that domestic pigs are unlikely to be competent long-term carriers of infectious FMDV; however, transient persistence of FMDV protein and RNA in lymphoid tissues is common following clinical or subclinical infection.

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