Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20719987›Full record

ArticleClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2010

Characterization of Erysipelothrix species isolates from clinically affected pigs, environmental samples, and vaccine strains from six recent swine erysipelas outbreaks in the United States.

J S Bender, H G Shen, C K Irwin, K J Schwartz, T Opriessnig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Phenotypic and Genotypic Characterization of a Highly VirulentTransboundary and emerging diseases · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Pathological and Genomic Findings ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    Article
  9. Evaluation of oral fluids for surveillance of foodborne and zoonotic pathogens in pig farms.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. First Report of Genetic Variability ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

J S BenderVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
H G Shen
C K Irwin
K J Schwartz
T Opriessnig

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to characterize Erysipelothrix sp. isolates from clinically affected pigs and their environment and compare them to the Erysipelothrix sp. vaccines used at the sites. Samples were collected during swine erysipelas outbreaks in vaccinated pigs in six Midwest United States swine operations from 2007 to 2009. Pig tissue samples were collected from 1 to 3 pigs from each site. Environmental samples (manure, feed, central-line water, oral fluids, and swabs collected from walls, feed lines, air inlets, exhaust fans, and nipple drinkers) and live vaccine samples were collected following the isolation of Erysipelothrix spp. from clinically affected pigs. All Erysipelothrix sp. isolates obtained were further characterized by serotyping. Selected isolates were further characterized by PCR assays for genotype (E. rhusiopathiae, E. tonsillarum, Erysipelothrix sp. strain 1, and Erysipelothrix sp. strain 2) and surface protective antigen (spa) type (A, B1, B2, and C). All 26 isolates obtained from affected pigs were E. rhusiopathiae, specifically, serotypes 1a, 1b, 2, and 21. From environmental samples, 56 isolates were obtained and 52/56 were E. rhusiopathiae (serotypes 1a, 1b, 2, 6, 9, 12, and 21), 3/56 were Erysipelothrix sp. strain 1 (serotypes 13 and untypeable), and one was a novel species designated Erysipelothrix sp. strain 3 (serotype untypeable). Four of six vaccines used at the sites were commercially available products and contained live E. rhusiopathiae serotype 1a. Of the remaining two vaccines, one was an autogenous live vaccine and contained live E. rhusiopathiae serotype 2 and one was a commercially produced inactivated vaccine and was described by the manufacturer to contain serotype 2 antigen. All E. rhusiopathiae isolates were positive for spaA. All Erysipelothrix sp. strain 1 isolates and the novel Erysipelothrix sp. strain 3 isolate were negative for all currently known spa types (A, B1, B2, and C). These results indicate that Erysipelothrix spp. can be isolated from the environment of clinically affected pigs; however, the identified serotypes in pigs differ from those in the environment at the selected sites. At one of the six affected sites, the vaccine strain and the isolates from clinically affected pigs were of homologous serotype; however, vaccinal and clinical isolates were of heterologous serotype at the remaining five sites, suggesting that reevaluation of vaccine efficacy using recent field strains may be warranted.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksEnvironmental MicrobiologyAnimalsBacterial Typing TechniquesBacterial VaccinesDNA, BacterialErysipelothrixMidwestern United StatesMolecular Sequence DataPolymerase Chain ReactionSequence Analysis, DNASerotypingSwineSwine ErysipelasBacterial VaccinesDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID20719987
PMCPMC2952986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.