ArticleViruses2025
Optimizing Tongue Fluid Sampling and Testing Protocols for Enhanced PRRSV Isolation from Perinatal Swine Mortalities.
Article in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing PRRSV Detection: The Impact of Sample Processing and Testing Strategies on Tongue Tips.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Etiological Detection, Isolation, and Pathogenicity of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus in China.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluating postmortem tongue fluids as a tool for monitoring PRRSV and IAV in the post-wean phases of swine production.Porcine health management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) remains a major concern for swine health. Isolating PRRSV is essential for identifying infectious viruses and for vaccine formulation. This study evaluated the potential of using tongue fluid (TF) from perinatal piglet mortalities for PRRSV isolation. Four collection protocols were tested: extracting TF from fresh tissues using phosphate-buffered saline (PBS group), extracting TF from fresh tissues using virus transportation medium (VTM group), extracting TF from freeze-thawed tissue (freeze-thaw group), and using tissue homogenates (homogenate group). Two cell lines (ZMAC and MARC-145) and primary alveolar macrophages (PAM) were evaluated for their effect on successful PRRSV isolation. An eligible PRRSV-positive unstable breeding herd in Midwestern USA was chosen for the study. Tongues were collected in 20 batches (~30 mortalities per batch). Within each batch, each tongue tissue was cut into four quarters, with each quarter randomly assigned to one of the four collection protocols and RT-qPCR tested. Virus isolation (VI) was attempted on 10 batches. The mean RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for the PBS, VTM, freeze-thaw, and homogenate groups were 21.9, 21.8, 22.6, and 24.8, respectively. The VI success rate was 22.6%, 12.1%, 2.8%, and 2.8% in the PBS, VTM, freeze-thaw, and homogenate groups, respectively. The probability of successful VI was 3.1% and 21.0% in the MARC-145 and ZMAC cell lines, respectively, and 4.8% in the PAM cells. TF from perinatal mortalities is an option for PRRS VI, aiding in PRRSV monitoring and control programs.
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.