Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Che'Amat A, Armenteros JA, González-Barrio D, Lima JF, Díez-Delgado I, Barasona JA, et al.
    Prev Vet Med, 2016 Dec 01;135:132-135.
    PMID: 27843020 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.002
    We assessed the suitability of targeted removal as a means for tuberculosis (TB) control on an intensely managed Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa) hunting estate. The 60km(2) large study area included one capture (treatment) site, one control site, and one release site. Each site was fenced. In the summers of 2012, 2013 and 2014, 929 wild boar were live-captured on the treatment site. All wild boar were micro-chipped and tested using an animal side lateral flow test immediately after capture in order to detect antibodies to the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC). The wild boar were released according to their TB status: Seropositive individuals onto the release site (hunted after summer), and seronegative individuals back onto the treatment site. The annual summer seroprevalence of antibodies to the MTC declined significantly in live-captured wild boar piglets from the treatment site, from 44% in 2012 to 27% in 2013 (a reduction of 39%). However, no significant further reduction was recorded in 2014, during the third capture season. Fall-winter MTC infection prevalence was calculated on the basis of the culture results obtained for hunter-harvested wild boar. No significant changes between hunting seasons were recorded on either the treatment site or the control site, and prevalence trends over time were similar on both sites. The fall-winter MTC infection prevalence on the release site increased significantly from 40% in 2011-2012 to 64% in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 (60% increase). Recaptures indicated a persistently high infection pressure. This experiment, the first attempt to control TB in wild boar through targeted removal, failed to reduce TB prevalence when compared to the control site. However, it generated valuable knowledge on infection pressure and on the consequences of translocating TB-infected wild boar.
  2. Che' Amat A, González-Barrio D, Ortiz JA, Díez-Delgado I, Boadella M, Barasona JA, et al.
    Prev Vet Med, 2015 Sep 1;121(1-2):93-8.
    PMID: 26051843 DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.05.011
    Animal tuberculosis (TB) caused by infection with Mycobacterium bovis and closely related members of the M. tuberculosis complex (MTC), is often reported in the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa). Tests detecting antibodies against MTC antigens are valuable tools for TB monitoring and control in suids. However, only limited knowledge exists on serology test performance in 2-6 month-old piglets. In this age-class, recent infections might cause lower antibody levels and lower test sensitivity. We examined 126 wild boar piglets from a TB-endemic site using 6 antibody detection tests in order to assess test performance. Bacterial culture (n=53) yielded a M. bovis infection prevalence of 33.9%, while serum antibody prevalence estimated by different tests ranged from 19% to 38%, reaching sensitivities between 15.4% and 46.2% for plate ELISAs and between 61.5% and 69.2% for rapid immunochromatographic tests based on dual path platform (DPP) technology. The Cohen kappa coefficient of agreement between DPP WTB (Wildlife TB) assay and culture results was moderate (0.45) and all other serological tests used had poor to fair agreements. This survey revealed the ability of several tests for detecting serum antibodies against the MTC antigens in 2-6 month-old naturally infected wild boar piglets. The best performance was demonstrated for DPP tests. The results confirmed our initial hypothesis of a lower sensitivity of serology for detecting M. bovis-infected piglets, as compared to older wild boar. Certain tests, notably the rapid animal-side tests, can contribute to TB control strategies by enabling the setup of test and cull schemes or improving pre-movement testing. However, sub-optimal test performance in piglets as compared to that in older wild boar should be taken into account.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links