20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Academic Journals Database
  • Open J Gate
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • JournalTOCs
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • Scimago
  • Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
  • RefSeek
  • Hamdard University
  • EBSCO A-Z
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Publons
  • MIAR
  • University Grants Commission
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
Share This Page
Recommended Webinars & Conferences
Journal Flyer
Flyer image

Short Communication - (2017) Volume 8, Issue 1

Comparison of Two Challenge Models of Atrophic Rhinitis in Piglets

Shijiang Gu1#, Yangyang Fan1#, Dongbo Hu1, Xiangdong Li1, Xiaolong Tian2, Yonghong LiaoYonghong Liao1* and Kegong Tian1,3*
1National Research Center for Veterinary Medicine, High-Tech District, Luoyang, PR China
2Pulike Biological Engineering Co. Ltd, New District, Luoyang, PR China
3College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, PR China
#Contributed equally to this work
*Corresponding Author(s): Yonghong LiaoYonghong Liao, National Research Center for Veterinary Medicine, High-Tech District, Luoyang, PR China
Kegong Tian, National Research Center for Veterinary Medicine, High-Tech District, Luoyang, PR China Email:

Abstract

Background: Swine atrophic rhinitis (AR) is a multiple chronic respiratory diseasemainly caused by porcine Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb) and Toxigenic Pasteurella multocida (T+Pm). There are two challenge models using Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida. The first model is to treat pigs with Bordetella bronchiseptica followed by Toxigenic Pasteurella multocida infection. Another model is to inoculate pigs with Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida simultaneously. So far, there is no report about comparison of these two challenge models as for their effectiveness to establish infection.

Methods: Thirteen 42 day-old piglets were divided into three groups. Pigs in the first group were challenged with Bordetella bronchiseptica followed by Toxigenic Pasteurella multocida infection (model 1). Pigs in the second group were challenged with Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida at the same time (model 2). Pigs in the third group worked as sterile controls. Clinical symptoms, turbinate lesions, lung lesions and daily bodyweight gain were used as parameters to evaluate the effectiveness of above challenge models.

Results: All challenged piglets showed different degrees of clinical symptoms, turbinate lesions, lung lesions and loss of average daily bodyweight gain. There was no significant difference in clinical symptoms and lung lesions between two challenge models. However, significant differences in turbinate lesion score and average daily gain were observed between these two challenge models.

Discussion and Conclusion: Turbinate lesions score of piglets in first group ranged from 4 to 10 and only 1/5 of piglets had a total turbinate score of 10. By contrast, turbinate lesions score of piglets in the second group ranged from 8 to 16 and 4/5 of piglets had a total turbinate score of equal or above to 10. Therefore, all above data indicated that co-infection of Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida was more suitable for to establish AR infection model.

Background

Swine atrophic rhinitis (AR) is a multiple chronic respiratory diseasemainly caused by porcine Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb) and Toxigenic Pasteurella multocida (T+Pm). The clinical symptoms of disease include rhinitis, nasal deformation, nasal bone atrophy and growth performance decline [1].

Vaccination is an effective means of prevention and control of AR. Most of AR vaccines contain antigens of Bb and Pm [2]. According to European Pharmacopoeia, vaccines containing antigenic components of Bb and Pm should be evaluated using a challenge model combined with Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida by nasal infection. There are two challenge models combined with Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida . One model is to treat with Bordetella bronchiseptica followed by Toxigenic Pasteurella multocida infection [2-7]. Another model is to inoculate with Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida at the same time [8-10]. There was no report about comparison of the effectiveness for above two challenge models. Therefore, in this study, we compared these two types of challenge models on 42 day-old pigs and provided a more suitable evaluation model for piglets after immunization.

Materials and Methods

Bordetella bronchiseptica strain HN8 and type D toxigenic Pasteurella multocida strain HB4 were isolated from a herd with clinical AR. Bb strain HN8 was cultured on Bordet-Gengou (BG) agar (Difco, Detroit, USA) at 37 for 40h and was diluted in brain heart infusion (BHI) broth (Difco, Detroit, USA) to give a suspension of about 4 × 109 colony forming units/ml (CFU/ml). Pm strain HB4 was cultured on TSA plate (Difco, Detroit, USA) containing 5% bovine serum at 37°C for 16h and was diluted in brain heart infusion (BHI) broth (Difco, Detroit, USA) to give a suspension of about 4 × 1010 CFU/ml.

Thirteen 42-day-old piglets were divided into three groups with 5 piglets in each challenged groups and 3 piglets in sterile control group. The experimental piglets were excluded from Bb and Pm infections by using RCR [11,12]. Serologically, Bb agglutination antibodies in piglet sera were less than 1:10. The method was described in Pedersen [13]. Piglet sera were also tested to be negative using OXOID PMT Antibody Assay Kit. The above pig animal trials were approved by the Animal Care and Ethics Committee of China National Research Center for Veterinary Medicine.

Piglets in group 1 (model 1) were inoculated with Bb HN8 strain at 1 ml/nostril (2 × 109CFU/ml). Three days later, piglets were inoculated with Pm strain HB4 in the same manner within next consecutive 4 days at 1 ml/nostril (2 × 1010CFU/ml). Piglets in group 2 (model 2) were received simultaneously the mixed Bb HN8 strain and Pm HB4 strain with same bacterial titers as in model 1. The 2nd and 3rd boosts were preformed every other two days in the same amount of bacteria and inoculation way. Piglets without infection in the 3rd group worked as sterile controls throughout the study.

The inoculated piglets were observed daily for AR clinical signs such as sneezing, cough, wheezing, and eye patches. The body weight of piglets was collected at day 0 and 35 day post-inoculation to calculate daily bodyweight gain. The turbinate bone atrophy (TA), nasal septum deviation (NSD) and lung lesions were examined in a blind manner at necropsy. Turbinate bone atrophy and nasal septum deviation were assessed according to Magyar [2]. The area of lung lesions (%) was assessed according to Hannan et al. [14]. Statistical differences were determined by student-t test (Prism 5.0, GraphPad Software, SanDiego, CA). Differences were considered statistically significant when P<0.05

Results

Sneezing, coughing and asthma of piglets were observed after bacterial challenges. However, there was no significant difference in clinical symptoms between group 1 and group 2 as shown by Table 1. At necropsy, lung and turbinate lesion scores of each individual piglet were evaluated as previously described [5]. As shown by Figure 1, all challenged piglets had varying degrees of turbinate lesions. The mean turbinate lesion score of piglets in group 1 was 7.4 ± 2.41 and there was only one pig had score of 10 (Table 1). By contrast, the mean turbinate lesion score of piglets in group 1 was 11.4 ± 2.97 and four out five piglets had score of 10 or above. There were significant differences in turbinate lesion score between group 1 and group 2 (P<0.05). As expected, there were no clinical symptoms, turbinate and lung lesions in the non-challenged control. There was no significant difference in clinical symptoms and lung lesions between group 1 and group 2 as shown by Table 1.

Group Piglet number Symptoma Lesion
Turbinate Lung (%)
Group 1 16 2 9 6.8
17 3 10 20.3
18 1 6 4.1
19 2 4 9.5
66 3 8 10.8
Mean ± SD 2.2 ± 0.84* 7.4 ± 2.41* 10.3 ± 6.16*
Group 2 5 2 8 10.8
67 3 11 2.7
70 3 16 13.5
79 2 10 6.8
81 3 12 6.8
Mean ± SD 2.6 ± 0.55* 11.4 ± 2.97** 8.12 ± 4.15*
Non-challenged Control 6 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
8 0 0 0
Mean ± SD 0 0 0
a: 0 indicates no clinical symptoms.
1 indicates occasional sneezing, and/or occasional coughing, and/or occasional asthma.
2 indicate intermediate frequency of sneezing, coughing and wheezing.
3 indicate high frequency of sneezing, coughing, wheezing and/or tear spots. The number of asterisks showed significant difference compared with the same column (P<0.05).

Table 1: Clinical signs of AR and post-mortal findings.

vaccines-vaccination-Porcine-nasal-bone

Figure 1: Porcine nasal bone picture in each group obtained at 35 days after challenge. A: Non-challenged group; B: Group1; C: Group 2.

The average daily gain of piglets in group 2 was also significantly lower than the piglets in non-challenged group and group 1 (P<0.05) by the end of study. The average daily gain of piglets in group 1 was slightly lower than that in non-challenged controls. But the difference was not significant (Table 2).

Group Piglet number Pig body weight (kg) Average daily gain (g)
BI PIw5
Experiment 1 16 12.8 26.3 362.9*
17 10.1 26.3
18 9.7 27
19 12.6 24.5
66 12 27.5
Experiment 2 5 9.6 22.1 312.0**
67 11.3 25.3
70 9.8 20.8
79 12.2 22.5
81 11.1 25.7
Non-challenged Control 6 11.3 28.1 395.8*
7 9.8 25.6
8 10.8 25.7

Table 2: Mean daily weight gain.

The different number of asterisks showed significant difference (P<0.05) between two groupsBI: before inoculation; PI: post inoculation.

Discussion and Conclusion

The Bordetella bronchiseptica treatment followed by Toxigenic Pasteurella multocida infection used in group 1 had been tested on 4- day-old, 34-day-old, 2-month-old and 4-month-old piglets with varying degrees of turbinate lesions [2,7,15,16]. Inoculated the Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida at the same time used in group 2 had been tested in 6-day-old, 3-week-old, and 6 to 8- week-old piglets with varying degrees of turbinate lesions [8-10]. However, there is no report on the effect of above two kinds of challenge models. The purpose of this study was to compare the two different challenge models on 42 day-old piglets.

In clinical or experimental conditions, AR is often accompanied by clinical symptoms, daily weight loss, turbinate lesions, lung lesions [10,15,17,18]. Both two challenge models in group 1 and group 2 on 42-day-old pigs resulted in varying degrees of clinical symptoms, turbinate lesions, lung lesions and reductions in mean daily weight gain. The turbinate lesions were the main index of AR. In group1, the turbinate lesions score of piglets ranged from 4 to 10 and the mean turbinate score was 7.4. In group 2, the turbinate lesions score of piglets ranged from 8 to 16 and the mean turbinate score was 11.4. The mean turbinate score in group 2 were significantly higher than those in group 1 (P<0.05). Toxigenic Pasteurella multocida colonization requires Bb pre-infection [19], and younger piglets were sensitive to Bb and were less susceptible as pigs were older [20]. Since piglets in group 1 only had one time of Bb intranasal infection, it was not sufficient to colonize the ensuing toxigenic Pasteurella multocida . By contrast, two more boosts of Bb infection were performed on piglets in group 2 which may explain the discrepancy of scores between these two groups.

According to the European Pharmacopoeia, 80% of pigs in the unvaccinated control group have a total turbinate score of at least 10. Based on the above results, the second infection way is more suitable to establish AR disease model on 42-day-old piglets.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by grant from Luoyang Heluo Talent Plan (Dr. Kegong Tian).

References

  1. Horiguchi Y (2012) Swine atrophic rhinitis caused by pasteurella multocida toxin and bordetella dermonecrotic toxin. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 361: 113-129.
  2. Magyar T, King VL, Kovács F (2002) Evaluation of vaccines for atrophic rhinitis-a comparison of three challenge models. Vaccine 20: 1797-1802.
  3. Chanter N, Magyar T, Rutter JM (1989) Interactions between Bordetella bronchiseptica and toxigenic Pasteurella multocida in atrophic rhinitis of pigs. Res. Vet. Sci., 47: 48-53.
  4. Chen C, Lu C, Chang T, Chan I (1989) Experimentally induced swine atrophic rhinitis by Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida and their combined infection. J. Chinese Vet. Sci., 15: 129-137.
  5. Pedersen KB, Barfod K (1981) The aetiological significance of Bordetella bronchiseptica and Pasteurella multocida in atrophic rhinitis of swine. Nord Vet Med 33: 513-522.
  6. Rutter JM (1983) Virulence of Pasteurella multocida in atrophic rhinitis of gnotobiotic pigs infected with Bordetella bronchiseptica. Res Vet Sci 34: 287-295.
  7. Magyar T, Donkó T, Repa I, Kovács M. (2013) Regeneration of toxigenic Pasteurella multocida induced severe turbinate atrophy in pigs detected by computed tomography. BMC Vet Res. 9: 222.
  8. Rhodes MB, New CW Jr, Baker PK, Hogg A, Underdahl NR (1987) Bordetella bronchiseptica and toxigenic type D Pasteurella multocida as agents of severe atrophic rhinitis of swine. Vet Microbiol 13: 179-187.
  9. Gatlin CL, Jordan WH, Shryock TR, Smith WC (1996) The quantitation of turbinate atrophy in pigs to measure the severity of induced atrophic rhinitis. Can J Vet Res 60: 121-126.
  10. Lee J, Kang HE, Woo HJ (2012) Protective immunity conferred by the C-terminal fragment of recombinant Pasteurella multocida toxin.Clin Vaccine Immunol. 19: 1526-1531.
  11. Hozbor D, Fouque F, Guiso N (1999) Detection of Bordetella bronchiseptica by the polymerase chain reaction. Res Microbiol 150: 333-341.
  12. Townsend KM, Boyce JD, Chung JY, Frost AJ, Adler B (2001) Genetic organization of Pasteurella multocida cap Loci and development of a multiplex capsular PCR typing system. See comment in PubMed Commons below J Clin Microbiol 39: 924-929.
  13. Pedersen KB (1975) The serology of Bordetella bronchiseptica isolated from pigs compared with strains from other animal species. Acta Path Microbiol Scand Sect B. 83: 590-594.
  14. Hannan PC, Bhogal BS, Fish JP (1982) Tylosin tartrate and tiamutilin effects on experimental piglet pneumonia induced with pneumonic pig lung homogenate containing mycoplasmas, bacteria and viruses. Res Vet Sci 33: 76-88.
  15. Sakano T, Okada M, Taneda A, Mukai T, Sato S (1997) Effect of Bordetella bronchiseptica and serotype D Pasteurella multocida bacterin-toxoid on the occurrence of atrophic rhinitis after experimental infection with B. bronchiseptica and toxigenic type AP. multocida. J Vet Med Sci. 59: 55-57.
  16. Sakano T, Okada M, Taneda A, Ono M, Sato S (1992) Experimental atrophic rhinitis in 2 and 4 month old pigs infected sequentially with Bordetella bronchiseptica and toxigenic type D Pasteurella multocida. Vet Microbiol. 31: 197-206.
  17. Pedersen KB, Elling F (1984) The pathogenesis of atrophic rhinitis in pigs induced by toxigenic Pasteurella multocida. J Comp Pathol 94: 203-214.
  18. van Diemen PM, de Vries Reilingh G, Parmentier HK (1994) Immune responses of piglets to Pasteurella multocida toxin and toxoid. See comment in PubMed Commons below Vet Immunol Immunopathol 41: 307-321.
  19. Dugal F, Bélanger M, Jacques M. (1992) Enhanced adherence of Pasteurella multocida to porcine tracheal rings preinfected with Bordetella bronchiseptica. Can J Vet Res. 56: 260-264.
  20. Koshimizu K, Kodama Y, Ogata M, Sanbyakuda S, Otake Y (1973) Studies on the etiology of infectious atrophic rhinitis of swine. V. Experimental Bordetella bronchiseptica infection in conventional piglets. Nihon Juigaku Zasshi. 35: 223-229.
Citation: Gu S, Fan Y, Hu D, Li X, Tian X, et al. (2017) Comparison of Two Challenge Models of Atrophic Rhinitis in Piglets. J Vaccines Vaccin 8:352.

Copyright: © 2017 Gu S, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
bellicon