ArticleVeterinary research communications2015
Comparison of pathogenicity of highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus between wild and domestic pigs.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Intestinal Viral Loads and Inactivation Kinetics of Livestock Viruses Relevant for Natural Casing Production: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus Structural Protein GP3 Regulates Claudin 4 To Facilitate the Early Stages of Infection.Journal of virology · 2020Article
- Comparative Pathology of Domestic Pigs and Wild Boar Infected with the Moderately Virulent African Swine Fever Virus Strain "Estonia 2014".Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the pathogenicity of highly pathogenic porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (HP-PRRSV) infection between wild and domestic pigs based on clinical, immunological, and pathological evaluation. Upon challenge with HP-PRRSV, five wild pigs died compared to none of the domestic. Anti-PRRSV antibody titers were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in wild HP-PRRSV-infected pigs versus the domestic HP-PRRSV-infected pigs at 21 days post inoculation (dpi). Lung lesion scores at 7 dpi were also significantly (P < 0.01) higher in domestic infected pigs than wild infected pigs. The most striking difference was the viral tissue distribution between the wild and domestic HP-PRRSV-infected pigs. HP-PRRSV-positive cells were observed in bronchiolar, gastric, and renal tubular epithelial cells from wild HP-PRRSV-infected pigs only. The results in this study demonstrated a genetic difference exists between wild and domestic pigs, which could results in different clinical signs, immunological responses, and pathological outcomes to HP-PRRSV infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.