Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 7;11(1):2.
doi: 10.1186/s40813-024-00415-4.

Field study on the suitability of oral fluid samples for monitoring of Lawsonia intracellularis and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae by multiplex qPCR under field conditions

Matthias Eddicks  1 , Gerald Reiner  2 , Sigena Junker  3 , Hermann Willems  2 , Sabrina Becker  2 , Julia Stadler  3 , Josefine Hagn  4 , Mathias Ritzmann  3
Affiliations

Field study on the suitability of oral fluid samples for monitoring of Lawsonia intracellularis and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae by multiplex qPCR under field conditions

Matthias Eddicks et al. Porcine Health Manag. .

Abstract

Background: Monitoring or surveillance of infectious diseases is crucial in terms of herd health management of livestock. Investigations of oral fluids have become an animal friendly routine strategy to monitor respiratory pathogens in pigs. Less is known about the suitability of oral fluids for the detection of enteric pathogens in swine. In the present study we evaluated the use of oral fluids to monitor B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis compared to pooled fecal samples by multiplex qPCR in a pen-wise follow-up of fattening pigs. Therefore, we collected oral fluids at an age of 12, 16 and 20 weeks of life and compared them to pooled fecal samples collected from the same pens on two fattening farms.

Results: Cohen´s Kappa analysis revealed a substantial agreement between oral fluids and pooled fecal samples on pen level (Cohen´s Kappa: 0.745; p < 0.001). DNA-loads of L. intracellularis were tendentially higher (p = 0.053) in pooled fecal samples than in the corresponding OFs.

Conclusions: The present study shows that oral fluids are an appropriate tool to monitor B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis on conventional fattening farms under field conditions. However, multiple pen testing should be conducted to increase the diagnostic performance and sensitivity.

Keywords: Enteric diseases; Fattening; Livestock; Screening; Swine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval was waived as oral fluid sampling is not rated as animal testing by the appropriate authority (Az. 2532.Vet_03-18–43). Consent for publication: Written informed consent was obtained from the owners of the animals. Competing interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A Farm A: Quantitative results of the qPCR for L. intracellularis in PFS or OFs for each pen at different time points of sampling. Different colors indicate different DNA-loads in the sample material (green: negative, brown: the darker, the higher the DNA loads; n.d. = not detected). PCR results represent DNA copies/g feces or /ml OF. B Farm B: Quantitative results of the qPCR for L. intracellularis in PFS or OFs for each pen at different time points of sampling. Different colors indicate different DNA-loads in the sample material (green: negative, brown: the darker, the higher the DNA loads; n.d. = not detected). PCR results represent DNA copies/g feces or /ml OF. C Farm B: Quantitative results of the qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae for each pen at different time points of sampling. Different colors indicate different DNA-loads in the sample material (green: negative, brown: the darker, the higher the DNA loads; n.d. = not detected). PCR results represent DNA copies/g feces or /ml OF
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Boxplots of DNA copies/g feces or ml OF for L. intracellularis and B. hyodysenteriae in oral fluids (OFs) and pooled feces samples (PFS) over the entire study period of both study farms. Only PCR positive results included
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Feces scores of farm A and farm B for each time of sampling per pen over the entire study period
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Kittawornrat A, Zimmerman JJ. Toward a better understanding of pig behavior and pig welfare. Anim Health Res Rev. 2011;12(1):25–32. - PubMed
    1. Henao-Diaz A, Giménez-Lirola L, Baum DH, Zimmerman J. Guidelines for oral fluid-based surveillance of viral pathogens in swine. Porcine Health Manag. 2020;6(1):28. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nielsen GB, Nielsen JP, Haugegaard J, Leth SC, Larsen LE, Kristensen CS, et al. Comparison of serum pools and oral fluid samples for detection of porcine circovirus type 2 by quantitative real-time PCR in finisher pigs. Porcine Health Manag. 2018;4:2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kittawornrat A, Panyasing Y, Goodell C, Wang C, Gauger P, Harmon K, et al. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) surveillance using pre-weaning oral fluid samples detects circulation of wild-type PRRSV. Vet Microbiol. 2014;168(2–4):331–9. - PubMed
    1. Biernacka K, Karbowiak P, Wrobel P, Chareza T, Czopowicz M, Balka G, et al. Detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and influenza A virus (IAV) in oral fluid of pigs. Res Vet Sci. 2016;109:74–80. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources