Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40197296›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2025

Evaluating postmortem tongue fluids as a tool for monitoring PRRSV and IAV in the post-wean phases of swine production.

Onyekachukwu Henry Osemeke, Isadora Machado, Mafalda Mil-Homens, Grant Allison, Michael Paustian, Daniel C L Linhares, Gustavo S Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porcine health management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Oral fluids for detection and characterization ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Onyekachukwu Henry OsemekeVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 2231 Lloyd, 1809 S Riverside Dr., Ames, IA, 50011-3619, USA.
Isadora MachadoVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 2231 Lloyd, 1809 S Riverside Dr., Ames, IA, 50011-3619, USA.
Mafalda Mil-HomensVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 2231 Lloyd, 1809 S Riverside Dr., Ames, IA, 50011-3619, USA.
Grant AllisonWalcott Veterinary Clinic, Walcott, IA, USA.
Michael PaustianPaustian Enterprises, Walcott, IA, USA.
Daniel C L LinharesVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 2231 Lloyd, 1809 S Riverside Dr., Ames, IA, 50011-3619, USA.
Gustavo S SilvaVeterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 2231 Lloyd, 1809 S Riverside Dr., Ames, IA, 50011-3619, USA. gustavos@iastate.edu.

Funding

Swine Health Information Center Project 23-070 SHIC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPorcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and influenza A virus (IAV) are swine pathogens that can significantly impact the performance of post-weaning pigs. While oral fluid (OF) samples are widely used for monitoring these viruses, postmortem tongue fluid (TF) samples present a cost-effective alternative with potential advantages in viral detection. This study aimed to compare the performance of TF and OF samples collected from nursery and finishing pig herds in detecting PRRSV and IAV using reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). A Bayesian latent class model was used to estimate diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for TF and OF under the assumption of conditional independence. The study also examined the relationship between mortality rates and RT-qPCR outcomes, the success rate of Sanger sequencing for the PRRSV ORF-5 region, and the effect of pooling daily aggregated TF samples on the probability of PRRSV detection.

resultsIAV was detected in 34.9% of OF samples and 30.2% of TF samples, while PRRSV was identified in 67.4% of OF and 53.5% of TF samples. TF samples had a significantly lower mean Ct for PRRSV (29.1) compared to OF samples (32.8) but had a similar Ct (30.9) to OF (29.7) for IAV. The hierarchical latent class Bayesian model estimated the sensitivity and specificity values for OF as 37.3% and 61.7% for IAV, and 64.3% and 35.1% for PRRSV. The estimated sensitivity and specificity values for TF were 33.5% and 66.0% for IAV, and 53.0% and 47.0% for PRRSV. Among 22 matched TF and OF pairs submitted for PRRSV sequencing, 45.5% of OF samples and 63.6% of TF samples were successfully sequenced, with the higher success rate for TF attributed to having lower Ct values. Additionally, mortality rates were notably higher when PRRSV was detected, especially in cases with concurrent IAV detection. Regarding sample pooling, our results indicated that pooling TF samples significantly increased detection probabilities, with a 1/7 dilution achieving a 79% RT-qPCR detection rate, compared to a detection rate of 14.3% when testing a single day's TF sample from a week with only one positive day.

conclusionThe findings support the use of TF samples as a viable complement or alternative to OF samples for PRRSV and IAV surveillance in post-weaning pigs when mortalities are available. The cost-efficiency of TF sampling can enhance monitoring compliance, improve early pathogen detection, and facilitate timely responses to emerging threats in swine production. This study advocates for the adoption of TF as a risk-based sampling strategy in nursery and grow-finish settings, complementing live animal samples such as OF, ultimately contributing to better herd health management.

Indexed as

InfluenzaPoolPRRSVRT-qPCRSwineTissue fluidsTongueWean to finish

Identifiers

PMID40197296
PMCPMC11978129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.