Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32447386›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Effects of medium chain fatty acids as a mitigation or prevention strategy against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus in swine feed.

Annie B Lerner, Roger A Cochrane, Jordan T Gebhardt, Steve S Dritz, Cassandra K Jones, Joel M DeRouchey, Mike D Tokach, Robert D Goodband, Jianfa Bai, Elizabeth Porter and 8 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Risk and Mitigation of African Swine Fever Virus in Feed.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Review
  11. 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

18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Annie B LernerDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Roger A CochranePipestone Grow Finish, Pipestone, MN.
Jordan T GebhardtDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Steve S DritzDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Cassandra K JonesDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Joel M DeRoucheyDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Mike D TokachDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Robert D GoodbandDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Jianfa BaiDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Elizabeth PorterDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Joe AndersonDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Phillip C GaugerDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Drew R MagstadtDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Jianqiang ZhangDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Benjamin BassPMI, Arden Hills, MN.
Theodore KarnezosPMI, Arden Hills, MN.
Brenda de RodasPMI, Arden Hills, MN.
Jason C WoodworthDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, College of Agriculture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Kansas State University · USIowa State University · USPipestone (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feed has been shown to be a vector for viral transmission. Four experiments were conducted to: 1) determine if medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) are effective mitigants when applied to feed both pre- and post-porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) inoculation measured by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), 2) evaluate varying levels and combinations of MCFA measured by qRT-PCR, and 3) evaluate selected treatments in bioassay to determine infectivity. In exp. 1, treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 + 1 factorial with main effects of treatment (0.3% commercial formaldehyde [CF] product, Sal CURB [Kemin Industries, Inc.; Des Moines, IA], or 1% MCFA blend (Blend) of 1:1:1 C6:C8:C10 [PMI, Arden Hills, MN]) and timing of application (pre- or post-inoculation with PEDV) plus a positive control (PC; feed inoculated with PEDV and no treatment). All combinations of treatment and timing decreased detectable PEDV compared with the PC (P < 0.05). Pre-inoculation treatment elicited decreased magnitude of PEDV detection (cycle threshold value) compared with post-inoculation (P = 0.009). Magnitude of PEDV detection was decreased for CF compared with Blend (P < 0.0001). In exp. 2, pre-inoculation treatments consisted of: 1) PC, 2) 0.3% CF, 3 to 5) 0.125% to 0.33% C6:0, 6 to 8) 0.125% to 0.33% C8:0, 9 to 11) 0.125% to 0.33% C10:0, and 12 to 15) 0.125% to 0.66% C5:0. Treating feed with 0.33% C8:0 resulted in decreased (P < 0.05) PEDV detection compared with all other treatments. Increasing concentration of each individual MCFA decreased PEDV detectability (P < 0.042). In exp. 3, pre-inoculation treatments consisted of: 1) PC, 2) 0.3% CF, 3 to 7) 0.25% to 1% Blend, 8 to 10) 0.125% to 0.33% C6:0 + C8:0, 11 to 13) 0.125% to 0.33% C6:0 + C10:0, and 14 to 16) 0.125% to 0.33% C8:0 + C10:0. Treating feed with CF, 0.5% Blend, 0.75% Blend, 1% Blend, all levels of C6:0+C8:0, 0.25% C6:0 + 0.25% C10:0, 0.33% C6:0 + 0.33% C10:0, 0.25% C8:0 + 0.25% C10:0, or 0.33% C8:0 + 0.33% C10:0 elicited decreased detection of PEDV compared with PC (P < 0.05). Increasing concentration of each MCFA combination decreased PEDV detectability (linear, P < 0.012). In exp. 4, feed was treated pre-inoculation with: 1) no treatment (PC), 2) 0.3% CF, 3) 0.5% Blend, or 4) 0.3% C8:0 and analyzed via qRT-PCR and bioassay. Adding 0.5% Blend or 0.3% C8:0 resulted in decreased PEDV compared with PC and only PC resulted in a positive bioassay. Therefore, MCFA can decrease detection of PEDV in feed. Further, inclusion of lower levels of MCFA than previously evaluated are effective against PEDV.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsCoronavirus InfectionsFatty AcidsFood ContaminationPorcine epidemic diarrhea virusSwineSwine DiseasesFatty Acidsmedium chain fatty acidporcine epidemic diarrhea virusswine

Identifiers

PMID32447386
PMCPMC7281870
OpenAlexW3027984936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.