Dataset Information

A comparison of sampling and testing approaches for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed American mink.

ABSTRACT: Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in American mink (Neovison vison) is a global priority because outbreaks on mink farms have potential consequences for animal and public health. Surveillance programs often focus on screening natural mortalities; however, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding sampling and testing approaches. Using 76 mink from 3 naturally infected farms in British Columbia, Canada, we compared the performance of 2 reverse-transcription real-time PCR (RT-rtPCR) targets (the envelope [E] and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase [RdRp] genes) as well as serology. We also compared RT-rtPCR and sequencing results from nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, skin, and rectal swabs, as well as nasopharyngeal samples collected using swabs and interdental brushes. We found that infected mink were generally RT-rtPCR-positive on all samples; however, Ct values differed significantly among sample types (nasopharyngeal < oropharyngeal < skin < rectal). There was no difference in the results of nasopharyngeal samples collected using swabs or interdental brushes. For most mink (89.4%), qualitative (i.e., positive vs. negative) serology and RT-rtPCR results were concordant. However, mink were positive on RT-rtPCR and negative on serology and vice versa, and there was no significant correlation between Ct values on RT-rtPCR and percent inhibition on serology. Both the E and RdRp targets were detectable in all sample types, albeit with a small difference in Ct values. Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in multiple sample types, passive surveillance programs in mink should focus on multiple target RT-rtPCR testing of nasopharyngeal samples in combination with serology.

SUBMITTER: Himsworth CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10300625 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of sampling and testing approaches for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed American mink.

Himsworth Chelsea G CG Caleta Jessica M JM Coombe Michelle M McGregor Glenna G Dibernardo Antonia A Lindsay Robbin R Sekirov Inna I Prystajecky Natalie N

Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc 20230627 5

Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in American mink (<i>Neovison vison</i>) is a global priority because outbreaks on mink farms have potential consequences for animal and public health. Surveillance programs often focus on screening natural mortalities; however, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding sampling and testing approaches. Using 76 mink from 3 naturally infected farms in British Columbia, Canada, we compared the performance of 2 reverse-transcription real-time PCR (RT-rtPCR) targets (th ...[more]

PMID: 37366157

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aleutian mink disease virus (AMDV), which causes Aleutian disease, is widely spread both in farmed mink and wild mustelids. However, only limited data are available on the role of wild animals in AMDV transmission and spread. Our aim was to shed light on AMDV transmission among wild mustelids and estimate the effect of intense farming practices on the virus circulation by studying AMDV prevalence and genetic diversity among wild mustelids in Poland. We compared AMDV seroprevalence and proportion of PCR-positive individuals in American mink, polecats, otters, stone martens, and pine martens and used the phylogenetic analysis of the NS1 region to study transmission. In addition, we used a metagenomic approach to sequence complete AMDV genomes from tissue samples. In eastern Poland, AMDV seroprevalence in wild mustelids varied from 22 per cent in otters to 62 per cent and 64 per cent in stone martens and feral mink, respectively. All studied antibody-positive mink were also PCR positive, whereas only 10, 15, and 18 per cent of antibody-positive polecats, pine martens, and stone martens, respectively, were PCR positive, suggesting lower virus persistence among these animal species as compared to feral mink. In phylogenetic analysis, most sequences from feral mink formed region-specific clusters that have most likely emerged through multiple introductions of AMDV to feral mink population over decades. However, virus spread between regions was also observed. Virus sequences derived from farmed and wild animals formed separate subclusters in the phylogenetic tree, and no signs of recent virus transmission between farmed and wild animals were observed despite the frequent inflow of farmed mink escapees to wild populations. These results provide new information about the role of different mustelid species in AMDV transmission and about virus circulation among the wild mustelids. In addition, we pinpoint gaps of knowledge, where more studies are needed to achieve a comprehensive picture of AMDV transmission.

Project description:The shedding of pathogens by infected humans enables the use of sewage monitoring to conduct wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE). Although most WBE studies use data from large sewage treatment plants, timely data from smaller catchments are needed for targeted public health action. Traditional sampling methods, like autosamplers or grab sampling, are not conducive to quick ad hoc deployments and high-resolution monitoring at these smaller scales. This study develops and validates a cheap and easily deployable passive sampler unit, made from readily available consumables, with relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic but with broader use for WBE. We provide the first evidence that passive samplers can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater from populations with low prevalence of active COVID-19 infections (0.034 to 0.34 per 10,000), demonstrating their ability for early detection of infections at three different scales (lot, suburb, and city). A side by side evaluation of passive samplers (n = 245) and traditionally collected wastewater samples (n = 183) verified that the passive samplers were sensitive at detecting SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater. On all 33 days where we directly compared traditional and passive sampling techniques, at least one passive sampler was positive when the average SARS-CoV-2 concentration in the wastewater equaled or exceeded the quantification limit of 1.8 gene copies per mL (n = 7). Moreover, on 13 occasions where wastewater SARS-CoV-2 concentrations were less than 1.8 gene copies per mL, one or more passive samplers were positive. Finally, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) positive relationship between the concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater and the levels found on the passive samplers, indicating that with further evaluation, these devices could yield semi-quantitative results in the future. Passive samplers have the potential for wide use in WBE with attractive feasibility attributes of cost, ease of deployment at small-scale locations, and continuous sampling of the wastewater. Further research will focus on the optimization of laboratory methods including elution and extraction and continued parallel deployment and evaluations in a variety of settings to inform optimal use in wastewater surveillance.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative performance of different clinical sampling methods for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR among populations with suspected infection remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to systematically compare the diagnostic performance of different clinical specimen collection methods.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and Research Square from Jan 1, 2000, to Nov 16, 2020. We included original clinical studies that examined the performance of nasopharyngeal swabs and any additional respiratory specimens for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection among individuals presenting in ambulatory care. Studies without data on paired samples, or those that only examined different samples from confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases were not useful for examining diagnostic performance of a test and were excluded. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value, was examined using random effects models and double arcsine transformation.FindingsOf the 5577 studies identified in our search, 23 studies including 7973 participants with 16 762 respiratory samples were included. Respiratory specimens examined in these studies included 7973 nasopharyngeal swabs, 1622 nasal swabs, 6110 saliva samples, 338 throat swabs, and 719 pooled nasal and throat swabs. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the gold standard, pooled nasal and throat swabs gave the highest sensitivity of 97% (95% CI 93-100), whereas lower sensitivities were achieved by saliva (85%, 75-93) and nasal swabs (86%, 77-93) and a much lower sensitivity by throat swabs (68%, 35-94). A comparably high positive predictive value was obtained by pooled nasal and throat (97%, 90-100) and nasal swabs (96%, 87-100) and a slightly lower positive predictive value by saliva (93%, 88-97). Throat swabs have the lowest positive predictive value of 75% (95% CI 45-96). Comparably high specificities (range 97-99%) and negative predictive value (range 95-99%) were observed among different clinical specimens. Comparison between health-care-worker collection and self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs showed comparable diagnostic performance. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the analysis of pooled nasal and throat swabs and throat swabs, whereas moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2 ≥30%) was observed in studies on saliva and nasal swabs.InterpretationOur review suggests that, compared with the gold standard of nasopharyngeal swabs, pooled nasal and throat swabs offered the best diagnostic performance of the alternative sampling approaches for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory care. Saliva and nasal swabs gave comparable and very good diagnostic performance and are clinically acceptable alternative specimen collection methods. Throat swabs gave a much lower sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be recommended. Self-collection for pooled nasal and throat swabs and nasal swabs was not associated with any significant impairment of diagnostic accuracy. Our results also provide a useful reference framework for the proper interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 testing results using different clinical specimens.FundingHong Kong Research Grants Council.

Project description:Reliable methods to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 at venues where people gather are essential for epidemiological surveillance to guide public policy. Communal screening of air in a highly crowded space has the potential to provide early warning on the presence and potential transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as suggested by studies early in the epidemic. As hospitals and public facilities apply varying degrees of restrictions and regulations, it is important to provide multiple methodological options to enable environmental SARS-CoV-2 surveillance under different conditions. This study assessed the feasibility of using high-flowrate air samplers combined with RNA extraction kit designed for environmental sample to perform airborne SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in hospital setting, tested by RT-qPCR. The success rate of the air samples in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was then compared with surface swab samples collected in the same proximity. Additionally, positive RT-qPCR samples underwent viral culture to assess the viability of the sampled SARS-CoV-2. The study was performed in inpatient ward environments of a quaternary care university teaching hospital in Singapore housing active COVID-19 patients within the period of February to May 2020. Two types of wards were tested, naturally ventilated open-cohort ward and mechanically ventilated isolation ward. Distances between the site of air sampling and the patient cluster in the investigated wards were also recorded. No successful detection of airborne SARS-CoV-2 was recorded when 50 L/min air samplers were used. Upon increasing the sampling flowrate to 150 L/min, our results showed a high success rate in detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 from the air samples (72%) compared to the surface swab samples (9.6%). The positive detection rate of the air samples along with the corresponding viral load could be associated with the distance between sampling site and patient. The furthest distance from patient with PCR-positive air samples was 5.5 m. The airborne SARS-CoV-2 detection was comparable between the two types of wards with 60%-87.5% success rate. High prevalence of the virus was found in toilet areas, both on surfaces and in air. Finally, no successful culture attempt was recorded from the environmental air or surface samples.

Dataset Information

A comparison of sampling and testing approaches for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed American mink.

Publications

A comparison of sampling and testing approaches for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed American mink.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets