Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Carlos B. Pijoan x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search


Objective—To determine effects of vaccination protocols with modified-live porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) vaccine on persistence and transmission of virus in pigs infected with a homologous isolate and determine clinical and virologic responses following heterologous viral challenge.

Animals—Four hundred forty 6- to 8-week-old PRRSV-naïve pigs.

Procedures—Pigs were allocated into 5 groups. Groups A to D were inoculated with wild-type PRRSV VR2332. Group A (positive control pigs) received PRRSV only. Groups B, C, and D received modified-live PRRSV vaccine (1, 2, or 3 doses). Group E served as a negative control group. To evaluate viral transmission, sentinel pigs were introduced into each group at intervals from 37 to 67, 67 to 97, and 97 to 127 days postinoculation (DPI). To evaluate persistence, pigs were euthanized at 37, 67, 97, or 127 DPI. To assess clinical and virologic response after challenge, selected pigs from each group were inoculated at 98 DPI with a heterologous isolate (PRRSV MN-184).

Results—Mass vaccination significantly reduced the number of persistently infected pigs at 127 DPI. Vaccination did not eliminate wild-type PRRSV; administration of 2 or 3 doses of modified-live virus vaccine reduced viral shedding after 97 DPI. Previous exposure to wild-type and vaccine virus reduced clinical signs and enhanced growth following heterologous challenge but did not prevent infection.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Findings suggest that therapeutic vaccination may help to reduce economic losses of PRRSV caused by infection; further studies to define the role of modified-live virus vaccines in control-eradication programs are needed.

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research


Objective—To evaluate retention of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in houseflies for various time frames and temperatures.

Sample Population—Fifteen 2-week-old pigs, two 10-week-old pigs, and laboratory-cultivated houseflies.

Procedure—In an initial experiment, houseflies were exposed to PRRSV; housed at 15°, 20°, 25°, and 30°C; and tested at various time points. In a second experiment to determine dynamics of virus retention, houseflies were exposed to PRRSV and housed under controlled field conditions for 48 hours. Changes in the percentage of PRRSV-positive flies and virus load per fly were assessed over time, and detection of infective virus at 48 hours after exposure was measured. Finally, in a third experiment, virus loads were measured in houseflies allowed to feed on blood, oropharyngeal washings, and nasal washings obtained from experimentally infected pigs.

Results—In experiment 1, PRRSV retention in houseflies was proportional to temperature. In the second experiment, the percentage of PRRSV-positive houseflies and virus load per fly decreased over time; however, infective PRRSV was found in houseflies 48 hours after exposure. In experiment 3, PRRSV was detected in houseflies allowed to feed on all 3 porcine body fluids.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—For the conditions of this study, houseflies did not support PRRSV replication. Therefore, retention of PRRSV in houseflies appears to be a function of initial virus load after ingestion and environmental temperature. These factors may impact the risk of insect-borne spread of PRRSV among farms. (Am J Vet Res 2005;66:1517–1525)

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research