ArticleVeterinary sciences2025
Detection and Comparison of Sow Serum Samples from Herds Regularly Mass Vaccinated with Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Modified Live Virus Using Four Commercial Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays and Neutralizing Tests.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) modified live virus (MLV) vaccination is used to control PRRSV. In China, farms conduct random sampling from sow herds every 4 to 6 months. They use the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method to monitor the immune status of the herd by tracking the positive rate or the sample-to-positive ratio. However, in farms that implement mass vaccination and have stable production, the positive rate of ELISA antibodies has decreased, especially in high-parity sows. This poses a considerable challenge to the current monitoring approach of PRRSV immunity. It remains unclear whether this reflects insufficient sensitivity of the kits for these special scenarios or the fact that the sows have truly lost immunity. In this study, 233 samples from four farms (A-D) across different regions of China were acquired. They were tested using four representative ELISA kits, two targeting the nucleocapsid protein (N) and two targeting the glycoprotein (GP) to evaluate PRRS immune status. The respective sample positive rates in A-D were 57.1-100%, 50.9-100%, 50-100%, and 75.7-100% using the kits. The positive rates using the four ELISA kits were 50.0-75.7%, 70.0-75.7%, 82.5-97.1%, and 100%, respectively, with poor agreement among them. The positive rates and humoral antibody levels for parity 1 and 2 sows were significantly lower than those with higher parities (>4). Eighty-eight ELISA-negative samples identified using ELISA kit A were verified using a viral neutralizing test (VNT), with only 15.9% of the samples testing negative. In conclusion, the ELISA antibody negativity issue existed, mostly occurring in specific farms tested using a specific kit. However, the low correlation with the VNT results and the poor agreements among the kits suggest that relying on one ELISA test is insufficient to monitor the immune status of PRRSV MLV-vaccinated herds.
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.