Skip to main content
Download PDF

Frequency of PCV-2 viremia in nursery piglets from a Spanish swine integration system in 2020 and 2022 considering PRRSV infection status

Porcine Health Management volume 10, Article number: 4 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Porcine circovirus 2 (PCV-2) poses a significant economic threat for the swine industry, causing a range of diseases collectively referred to as porcine circovirus diseases (PCVDs). Despite PCV-2 vaccine effectiveness, the need for monitoring infectious pressure remains. PCV-2 coinfection with other pathogens like porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) can exacerbate disease severity and lead to PCV-2-systemic disease cases. Monitoring both PRRSV and PCV-2 in co-infected farms is crucial for an effective management and vaccination programs. The present cross-sectional study aimed to determine PCV-2 antibody levels in piglets at weaning and PCV-2 and PRRSV viremia in pooled serum samples at weaning (vaccination age) and at 6 and 9 weeks of age from a Spanish swine integration system in 2020 (48 farms) and in 2022 (28 out of the 48 analysed previously).

Results

The frequency of PCV-2 detection in pools of piglet sera was 2.1% (2020) and 7.1% (2022) at vaccination age but increased at the end of the nursery period (10.4% in 2020 and 39.3% in 2022) in both years. Co-infections between PCV-2 and PRRSV were detected in a significant proportion of PRRSV positive farms (15% in 2020, and 60% in 2022). PCV-2 antibody levels (ELISA S/P ratios) at weaning were lower in PCV-2 qPCR positive farms at different sampling time-points (0.361 in 2020 and 0.378 in 2022) compared to PCV-2 qPCR negative ones (0.587 in 2020 and 0.541 in 2022). The 28 farms tested both years were classified in four different epidemiological scenarios depending on their PCV-2 virological status. Those PCV-2 qPCR negative farms in 2020 that turned to be positive in 2022 had a statistically significant increase of PRRSV RT-qPCR detection and a PCV-2 antibody levels reduction, facts that were not observed in the rest of the scenarios.

Conclusion

This epidemiological study in farms from the same integration system determined the occurrence, in 2020 and in 2022, of PCV-2 and PRRSV infections in piglets during the nursery period by using pooled serum samples.

Background

Porcine circovirus 2 (PCV-2) is considered one of the most economically important pathogens for the swine industry [1]. This virus is ubiquitous in most pig farms, being the causative agent of the so-called porcine circovirus diseases (PCVDs), which include the PCV-2 systemic disease (PCV-2-SD), the PCV-2 reproductive disease (PCV-2-RD), PCV-2 porcine dermatitis and nephropathy syndrome (PDNS) and the PCV-2 subclinical infection (PCV-2-SI) [2, 3].

PCVDs can have a variable impact depending on the PCV-2 immunological and epidemiological herd status, being most of them (except PCV-2-SI) linked to several clinical signs and lesions [4]. Among them, the principal recognized clinical condition is PCV-2-SD, which causes weight loss and wasting, and respiratory and digestive disorders can regularly be observed [3]. The PCV-2-SI, the most common PCVD nowadays, has an economic impact associated with a decrease of 10 to 40 g in average daily weight gain (ADWG) [5, 6]. Therefore, this condition seems to be the most economically impactful for the swine industry [4].

Although PCV-2 vaccines help reducing economic losses attributed to PCVDs, they are not able to completely prevent the viral infection [7,8,9]. In addition, mass vaccination against PCV-2 has contributed to an overall reduction of herd immunity over time, resulting in batches of animals with no virus exposure from weaning to slaughterhouse [10]. Some pig batches may reach the slaughterhouse being almost seronegative or having a low number of animals seroconverting [4, 10]. Therefore, it is important to monitor infectious pressure, especially at early ages of life, since it may allow re-evaluating control measures applied against PCV-2, such as determining the optimal age for piglet vaccination and the convenience of vaccinating the breeding herd.

Low maternally derived antibody (MDA) titres against PCV-2 and early infections in piglets together with sow viremia around farrowing are known risk factors to increase the likelihood of subsequent development of PCV-2-SD once maternally derived immunity (MDI) is waned [11,12,13,14]. Currently, piglet vaccination against PCV-2 is commonly applied around weaning (3–4 weeks of age), since at that age the levels of passive immunity can be overcome without causing significant vaccine intake interference [1, 15].

Although different experimental and field studies have demonstrated the performance of PCV-2 vaccines reducing viremia, clinical signs and/or microscopic lesions in presence of MDA, a proportion of pigs may still develop PCV-2-SI [16,17,18,19]. Importantly, the percentage of early infections depends on the balance between the level of MDI and the infectious pressure existing on a particular farm and batch, as well as co-infections with different pathogens [20]. The intensification of the swine industry in the last three decades has favoured more complex clinical presentations due to co-infections, with PCV-2 being found alongside porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), porcine parvovirus 1, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, among others [21].

PRRSV has been considered one of the most important viruses causing disease in pigs and great economic losses worldwide [22,23,24,25]. Furthermore, poor cross immunity has been demonstrated between different PRRSV strains, as the virus exhibits high genetic variability and constantly produces new strains with different virulence [26, 27]. Importantly, both PRRSV and PCV-2 target the host’s immune cells by disrupting their function [28, 29] increasing their susceptibility to other pathogens. Such co-infections could affect their growth performance and the incidence and lethality of associated diseases [28, 29]. Indeed, in some studies, PRRSV has been detected in co-infection in PCV-2-SD cases up to 50%, suggesting that co-infection of these viruses is a significant factor contributing to overt disease expression [30,31,32]. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that PRRSV infection at the time of PCV-2 vaccination jeopardizes the cellular immune response provided by the vaccine [33]. Thus, the surveillance of PRRSV and PCV-2 in farms enables to establish the most effective management and vaccination programs.

Therefore, the objectives of the present study were (1) to determine and compare the frequency of early PCV-2 viremia and antibody levels in piglets of different subclinically infected farms from a Spanish integration system in 2020 and 2022; and (2) to evaluate the frequency of PRRSV infection in those farms.

Materials and methods

Study design and sample collection

Forty-eight commercial farrow-to-weaning or farrow-to-nursery farms without PCV-2-SD-like clinical signs were included in the study in 2020, which represented a total of 1860 tested piglets. From these 48 farms, 28 were tested again in 2022 (1140 piglets). The characteristics of each farm regarding herd size, production system and farrowing batches are presented in detail in Additional file 1: Table S1. Farms were located at different areas of Spain, being Aragón and Castilla-León the most represented areas in both years as these regions have the highest pig density in Spain [34].

In 2020, between January and May, blood samples were collected from apparently healthy piglets at different ages in each selected farm. Sampling methodology included 10 (when farm size was < 1000 sows) or 30 (when farm size was ≥ 1000 sows) blood samples from piglets from different parity sows prior to vaccination (around 3–4 weeks of age), 10 samples at 6 weeks of age (woa), and 10 samples at 9 woa, respectively (Fig. 1). The same sampling procedure was performed in re-tested farms between January and August in 2022. The study followed a cross-sectional design, so, the piglets studied at different time-points were different.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Scheme of the study design, showing the number of farms included in the study in 2020 and in 2022, the different sampled ages, the number of bled pigs depending on the farm size, the laboratory techniques performed (IgG PCV-2 ELISA, qPCR for PCV-2 and RT-qPCR for PRRSV), and the number of samples analysed per each technique. PCV-2: porcine circovirus 2; PRRSV: porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus; woa: weeks of age

Full size image

Ten serum samples from the ones taken prior to vaccination per farm were subjected to PCV-2 serology. Such sampling size allowed detecting a theoretical 25% seroprevalence of PCV-2 with 95% confidence (http://www.winepi.net/sp/index.htm). Sera obtained from blood samples taken at all ages were tested by PCV-2 and PRRSV quantitative PCR (qPCR) and RT-qPCR, respectively. Specifically, for PCV-2, 10 sera from all age-groups were tested in two pools of five samples each by qPCR. For PRRSV all available sera were processed through RT-qPCR in pools of five samples. This testing would allow detecting a theoretical frequency of infection of 10% at weaning and 25% at 6 and 9 woa for PRRSV with 95% confidence (http://www.winepi.net/sp/index.htm). These calculations considered the theoretical percentage of detection based on individual samples. Therefore, levels of sensitivity and specificity for detection of these viruses when using pools are expected to be slightly lower compared to individual sample testing [35, 36].

DNA and RNA extractions and detection of PCV-2 and PRRSV by qPCR methods

Nucleic acids were extracted from 200 μL of each pool (of five samples) using the MagMAX™ Pathogen RNA/DNA Kit (Applied Biosystems) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Negative controls were included to assess potential contamination during extraction.

To detect and quantify the PCV-2 load, a commercial qPCR assay (LSI VetMAX™ Porcine Circovirus Type 2 Quantification, Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used. Each qPCR plate included a negative control and an internal positive control (IPC) to monitor extraction and amplification procedures. Serum pools with < 1.0 × 104 PCV-2 genome copies/mL were considered positive but non-quantifiable. Pools with > 1.0 × 104 PCV-2 genome copies/mL were considered positive and quantifiable. Finally undetermined sample pools (Ct value ≥ 40) were considered negative. Viral load was expressed as the mean PCV-2 genome copies/mL of pooled sera. To calculate the average genome copies per mL of pooled sera, those non-quantifiable positive values were given the cut-off value of 1.0 × 104 PCV-2 genome copies/mL. A farm was considered positive when at least one of the tested pools was positive to PCV-2 at any age.

To detect the PRRSV viremia, a commercial RT-qPCR assay (LSI VetMax™ PRRSV EU/NA 2.0, Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used. Each RT-qPCR plate included negative and IPC to monitor extraction and amplification procedures. Results were expressed as positive (Ct < 40) or negative (Ct ≥ than 40) for PRRSV. A farm was considered positive when at least one tested pool was positive to PRRSV at any tested age.

Indirect ELISA to detect anti-PCV-2 IgG antibodies

Ten serum samples of piglets at 3–4 woa were individually tested by an indirect commercial ELISA assay (Ingezim Circo IgG 11.PCV.K1® assay, INGENASA) following manufacturer’s instructions. All serum samples per farm were run on the same ELISA plate. The optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm by the Sunrise™ reader (Tecan). Negative and positive cut-offs were calculated in each ELISA plate and results were expressed as mean S/P ratio (OD of sample/OD of positive control for each ELISA plate) per tested farm.

Statistical analyses

The normal distribution of the quantitative variables (PCV-2 load and PCV-2 ELISA S/P ratios) was checked by the Shapiro Wilk’s test. PCV-2 load values and PCV-2 ELISA S/P ratios were analysed with the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test and Dunn’s multiple comparison test (when comparisons were done between sampling points) or Mann–Whitney test (when comparisons were done between 2020 and 2022). Frequency of detection for both pathogens at different ages and between years were compared using Chi Square or Fisher’s exact test. Statistical analyses and graphics were performed with Graphpad®. The significance level (p-value) was set at 0.05, and a trend towards statistical significance was set as 0.1.

Results

Forty-eight farms tested in 2020

PCV-2 and PRRSV infection

Nine of the 48 (18.8%; CI: 7.7–29.8%) farms tested in 2020 had at least one pool positive by PCV-2 qPCR. From the nine positive farms, one (11.1%; CI: 0.0–31.6%) had a qPCR positive pool prior vaccination, five showed positivity at 6 or at 9 woa (55.6%; CI: 23.1–88.0%), and finally three (33.3%; CI: 2.5–64.1%) had positive pools at both 6 and 9 woa (Table 1 and Additional file 1: Figure S1). In these 9 farms, the PCV-2 load ranged from 104 to 108 copies of PCV-2/mL of pooled sera, being the highest ones detected in those farms where PCV-2 infection was detected in two samplings points.

Table 1 PCV-2 qPCR and PRRSV RT-qPCR results obtained prior to vaccination (3–4 woa), and at 6 and 9 woa in the 48 farms sampled in 2020, clustering the farms by their PCV-2 qPCR results
Full size table

Regarding PRRSV, 20 (41.7%; CI: 27.7–55.6%) of the 48 tested farms had at least one pool positive by RT-qPCR. From these 20 PRRSV positive farms, only 3 (15%; CI: 0.0–30.6%) were also PCV-2 qPCR positive. Co-infection between PRRSV and PCV-2 was detected in pools from sera collected at 6 woa (2 farms) or 9 woa (1 farm).

PCV-2 IgG antibody levels in serum prior to PCV-2 vaccination

Globally, farms with pools positive to PCV-2 qPCR (n = 9) showed lower (p < 0.1) S/P ratios  (0.529 ± 0.287) than negative ones (0.587 ± 0.286). Specifically, farms with serum pools positive by PCV-2 qPCR at two sampling points (6 and 9) had statistically significant lower PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P values than those with pools positive only at 6 or 9 woa (p < 0.05) (Table 2). However, the coefficient of variation (CV) of these S/P values was high in all groups (Table 2).

Table 2 PCV-2 IgG ELISA mean S/P ratios obtained prior to vaccination (3–4 woa), grouped based on PCV-2 qPCR results at 3–4, 6 and 9 woa in the 48 farms sampled in 2020
Full size table

Twenty-eight farms tested in 2022

PCV-2 and PRRSV infection

From the 28 farms tested in 2022, 12 (42.9%; CI: 24.5–61.2%) had at least one pool positive by PCV-2 qPCR. Most of these farms (n = 11, 91.7%; CI: 76.0%–100.0% ) had positive pools at 9 woa where the peak of viral load (approx. 108 genome copies of PCV-2/mL of pooled sera) was also detected (Table 3 and Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Table 3 PCV-2 qPCR and PRRSV RT-qPCR results obtained prior to vaccination (3–4 woa), and at 6 and 9 woa in the 28 farms sampled in 2022, clustering the farms by their PCV-2 qPCR results
Full size table

Fifteen (53.6%; CI: 35.1–72.0%) out of these 28 re-sampled farms had at least one PRRSV RT-qPCR positive pool. From these 15, 9 (n = 60%; CI: 35.2–84.8%) were also positive to PCV-2.

PCV-2 IgG antibody levels in serum prior to PCV-2 vaccination

PCV-2 IgG ELISA S/P ratios in farms with qPCR positive serum pools (0.517 ± 0.315) were lower than the ones obtained in the negative ones (0.541 ± 0.285), although not being statistically different. Within the PCV-2 qPCR positive farms, those with pools positive at 3–4 woa had significantly lower S/P ratios than the ones positive only at 9 woa (Table 4). However, a high variability was observed in all groups as CV was higher than 50% in all groups (Table 4).

Table 4 PCV-2 IgG ELISA mean S/P ratios obtained prior to vaccination (3–4 woa), grouped based on PCV-2 qPCR results at 3–4, 6 and 9 woa in the 28 farms sampled in 2022
Full size table

PCV-2 and PRRSV infection and PCV-2 IgG antibodies in 28 farms in 2020 and 2022: definition of epidemiological scenarios

The 28 farms tested both years were classified considering the PCV-2 virological results into four different epidemiological scenarios (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

POS20-POS22: farms PCV-2 qPCR positive in both years (n = 4, 14.3%). Although the 4 farms were positive in both years, two of these farms in 2022 had a lower frequency of detection and the PCV-2 load was non-quantifiable (Additional file 1: Table S2). Regarding PRRSV viremia, 3 out of these 4 farms maintained the status in both years and the remaining one (SP-19) changed from RT-qPCR negative to positive.

POS20-NEG22: farms PCV-2 qPCR positive in 2020 but negative in 2022 (n = 1, 3.6%). This scenario was composed only by one farm that in 2020 had pools positive to PCV-2 prior to vaccination but in 2022 all the tested pools were negative. This farm was RT-qPCR negative for PRRSV in both years.

NEG20-POS22: farms PCV-2 qPCR negative in 2020 that turned to be positive in 2022 (n = 8, 28.6%). In this scenario, a statistically significant increase of PCV-2 detection frequency (p < 0.05) was detected from 2020 to 2022, mainly among the 6 and 9 woa groups (Additional file 1: Table S3). Within this scenario, the number of PRRSV RT-qPCR positive farms was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in 2022 (7 out of 8, 87.5%; CI: 64.6%–100.0%) compared to 2020 (3 out of 8, 37.5%; 3.95%–71.05%).

NEG20-NEG22: farms that were negative to PCV-2 qPCR both years (n = 15, 53.6%). Nine of these farms were PRRSV RT-qPCR positive in 2020 and five of them tested positive again in 2022. An additional farm turned positive that year (Additional file 1: Table S4).

Regarding PCV-2 IgG detection, the mean ELISA S/P ratios increased from 2020 to 2022 in scenarios POS20-POS22 and POS20-NEG22, while these decreased over the same period for scenarios NEG20-POS22 and NEG20-NEG22 (Table 5). These variations were only significant for NEG20-POS22 farms. When comparing scenarios within each year, only mean S/P ratios were significantly lower (p < 0.05) in POS20-POS22 farms compared to NEG20-POS22 and NEG20-NEG22 herds in 2020.

Table 5 PCV-2 IgG ELISA mean S/P ratios obtained prior to vaccination (3–4 woa) in the 28 farms sampled in 2020 and 2022, grouping the farms in the four stablished scenarios considering PCV-2 detection in both studied years
Full size table

Discussion

The economic impact of PCVDs has been considerably reduced since the advent of PCV-2 vaccines [6, 7, 9]. Such control of overt diseases associated with PCV-2 lead to the fact that the most frequent presentation nowadays is PCV-2-SI [3, 9, 37], which implies the interest to monitor the infection despite the lack of clinical signs. Therefore, the present study sought to determine the PCV-2 and PRRSV frequency of detection in nursery pigs from 48 commercial farms in Spain in 2020 with no clinical signs associated to PCVDs and to evaluate the epidemiological situation of these two pathogens in a proportion of these farms (n = 28) two years later.

In both years, there were farms with PCV-2 qPCR positive results in 3-to-9-week-old pigs with high PCV-2 loads, up to 1.0 × 108 copies/mL of pooled sera, which might potentially fit with a tentative diagnosis of PCV-2-SD when following the different thresholds proposed [3, 12, 38]. However, these thresholds were established with different qPCR methods compared to those used nowadays [4],therefore, it is very likely that obtained values (from pools of five sera) could be indicative of subclinical infections considering the lack of overt clinical signs in the herd at the moment of sampling. It is important to remark that a final diagnosis of PCV-2-SD must be established by means of histopathological lymphoid lesions and detection of PCV-2 within these lesions [4],therefore, the unequivocal diagnosis of PCV-2-SD could not be established based only on qPCR results.

In the 48 farms analysed in 2020, the frequency of PCV-2 detection in pools of piglet sera was very low at vaccination age (3–4 woa, 2.1% of the farms, n = 1/48) but increased up to 10.4% at the end of the nursery period (n = 5/48). The obtained low prevalence in suckling pigs agrees with previous epidemiological studies performed in Europe that described PCV-2 early viremia in piglets from endemically infected farms as fairly uncommon [39, 40]. Across the 28 farms analysed in 2022, the frequency of PCV-2 detection was higher towards the end of the nursery period (n = 11/28, 39.3% of the farms), despite being lower at vaccination age (n = 2/28, 7.1% of the farms). Results from both years are relatively low compared with the ones obtained in other studies performed in North-America [41, 42]. However, these latter studies were published at a time when PCV-2 vaccination was not as extensive as nowadays. Additionally, all these studies tested individual samples, whereas the present study is based on pooled samples to mimic usual field sampling and monitoring conditions used by swine veterinarians in different parts of the world. Studies in pools likely imply a reduction in the observed PCV-2 detection frequency [35, 36], but it was adopted to have the possibility to screen the higher number of farms/animals possible based on the epidemiological criteria set (theoretical frequency of infection of 25% for PCV-2 at all tested ages, and 10% at weaning and 25% at 6 and 9 woa for PRRSV with 95% confidence). In turn, this represents one of the limitations of this study, since we would not be able to detect epidemiological situations in which lower percentages of infection with these pathogens may occur.

Maternally derived immunity transferred to piglets was evaluated in terms of antibody levels at vaccination age (3–4 weeks of age) both years, and antibody S/P ratios were moderate-to-low and highly variable (close to 50% CV). Specifically, in both years, the ELISA S/P ratio tended to be lower when PCV-2 viremia was detected at more than one sampling time-point in a farm, than when viremia was not detected or was detected only in one sampling time-point. This could reinforce the statement that MDI has a protective effect against PCV-2 infection, and the moderate-to-low values observed fit with the described epidemiological change of PCV-2 infection due to vaccination pressure [4, 43]. These results are also in line with a previous study indicating that protection conferred by MDA is titre dependent, so its presence does not guarantee full protection against the infection, as previously described [44,45,46].

Additionally, the number of farms positive to PRRSV increased from almost 42% in 2020 up to 54% in 2022. In January 2020, a PRRSV-1 strain of increased virulence (commonly known as Rosalia), which was characterised by high abortion rates and increase mortality rates in weaners, was reported in North-Eastern (NE) Spain [27, 47]. The NE and its surrounding regions concentrate almost half of the Spanish pig farms and corresponds to the region from most of the farms tested in the present study [34]. This situation would probably explain the increase of farms positive to PRRSV, despite clinical signs due to this viral infection were not seen at the time when samplings were performed.

As previously mentioned, PRRSV and PCV-2 target the host’s immune cells by disrupting their function, and they have been detected co-existing in some PCV-2-SD cases, emphasizing that such co-infection can be a main driver for overt PCVD expression [29, 32]. Therefore, it is not surprising to have cases of PCV-2 and PRRSV co-infection in the nursery phase (in 15.0% and 60.0% of PRRSV positive farms in 2020 and 2022, respectively), as it has been already described [32], despite not having clinical problems in analysed farms.

To further examine the PRRSV and PCV-2 farm status co-evolution in more detail, the results from the 28 farms that were tested in 2020 and in 2022 were compared, classifying them into four epidemiological scenarios. In PCV-2 POS20-POS22 and NEG20-NEG22 ones, the total PRRSV detection frequency decreased (from 13.9 to 8.3%, and from 29.7 to 24.6%, respectively). The same happened with the PCV-2 detection frequency (from 45.8 to 33.3%) and the PCV-2 load (from the 8.76 × 107 to 1.13 × 107 copies of PCV-2 DNA/mL of pooled sera) in the PCV-2 POS20-POS22 scenario. Meanwhile, in the NEG20-POS22 scenario, PRRSV and PCV-2 detection frequency increased (from 22.1% to 50.0%, and from negative to 43.8%, respectively). In the POS20-POS22 scenario, the overall increase in the average ELISA S/P ratios, together with the reduction in PCV-2 load and PCV-2 and PRRSV detection frequencies between years, could reinforce the previously mentioned suggestion of the protective effect of MDI. However, in the NEG20-POS22 scenario, lower levels of anti-PCV-2 IgG antibodies from 2020 to 2022 could have been facilitated by the PRRSV infection in the farms, since it has a suppressive effect of the innate immunity and might jeopardize the pig’s immune response [29, 32, 48,49,50]. PRRSV influences the activation of the specific immune response, and an early PRRSV infection could compromise the efficacy of PCV-2 vaccines due to its detrimental effect on the development of naïve T cells, while it could negatively influence on the immune response to other pathogens [32, 33].

A similar reduction in the ELISA S/P ratios between years was observed in NEG20-NEG22, which could be due to an overall reduction in herd immunity due to the high efficacy of PCV-2 vaccines decreasing infection pressure in the farms. In such scenario, sow vaccination could be a good option to avoid the putative future occurrence of PCV-2-SD in piglets [4, 6].

Conclusion

The present epidemiological study describes the PCV-2 S/P ratios at weaning and the PCV-2 and PRRSV frequency of detection at 3–4, 6 and 9 woa in piglets from commercial swine farms from an integration system in two different periods (2020 and 2022). The results obtained revealed a higher frequency of PRRSV and PCV-2 detection in 2022 compared to 2020, including a higher incidence of co-infections. This evolution coincided with the appearance of highly virulent strains of PRRSV in Spain. We identified four epidemiological scenarios related to these infections, emphasizing the importance of continuous monitoring and adaptive measures for effective PCV-2 vaccination practices, particularly in light of early PCV-2 and PRRSV co-infections.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its Additional file 1.].

Abbreviations

ELISA:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

PCV-2:

Porcine circovirus 2

PRRSV:

Porcine reproductive and respiratory virus

qPCR:

Quantitative polimerase chain reaction

RT-qPCR:

Retrotranscriptase quantitative polimerase chain reaction

woa:

Weeks of age

References

  1. Segalés J, Allan GM. Domingo M (2019) Circoviruses. In Diseases of Swine; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA; pp 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1079/ahr2005106.

  2. Opriessnig T, Meng XJ, Halbur PG. Porcine circovirus type 2 associated disease: update on current terminology, clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and intervention strategies. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2007;19(6):591–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063870701900601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Segalés J. Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) infections: clinical signs, pathology and laboratory diagnosis. Virus Res. 2012;164(1–2):10–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2011.10.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Segalés J, Sibila M. Revisiting porcine circovirus disease diagnostic criteria in the current porcine circovirus 2 epidemiological context. Vet Sci. 2022;9(3):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9030110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Kristensen CS, Baadsgaard NP, Toft N. A meta-analysis comparing the effect of PCV2 vaccines on average daily weight gain and mortality rate in pigs from weaning to slaughter. Prev Vet Med. 2011;98(4):250–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.11.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Segalés J. Best practice and future challenges for vaccination against porcine circovirus type 2. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2015;14(3):473–87. https://doi.org/10.1586/14760584.2015.983084.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alarcon P, Rushton J, Wieland B. Cost of post-weaning multi-systemic wasting syndrome and porcine circovirus type-2 subclinical infection in England - an economic disease model. Prev Vet Med. 2013;110(2):88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Fraile L, Sibila M, Nofrarías M, López-Jimenez R, Huerta E, Llorens A, López-Soria S, Pérez D, Segalés J. Effect of sow and piglet porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccination on piglet mortality, viraemia, antibody titre and production parameters. Vet Microbiol. 2012;161(1–2):229–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.07.021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Young MG, Cunningham GL, Sanford SE. Circovirus vaccination in pigs with subclinical porcine circovirus type 2 infection complicated by ileitis. J Swine Health Prod. 2011;19:175–80.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kristensen CS, Hjulsager CK, Larsen LE. A two-year follow-up study of the PCV2 status of a Danish pig herd that was initially assumed to be PCV2-free. Porcine Health Manag. 2015;1:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2055-5660-1-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Calsamiglia M, Fraile L, Espinal A, Cuxart A, Seminati C, Martín M, Mateu E, Domingo M, Segalés J. Sow porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) status effect on litter mortality in postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS). Res Vet Sci. 2007;82(3):299–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2006.08.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grau-Roma L, Hjulsager CK, Sibila M, Kristensen CS, López-Soria S, Enøe C, Casal J, Bøtner A, Nofrarías M, Bille-Hansen V, Fraile L, Baekbo P, Segalés J, Larsen LE. Infection, excretion and seroconversion dynamics of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) in pigs from post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) affected farms in Spain and Denmark. Vet Microbiol. 2009;135(3–4):272–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.10.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. López-Soria S, Segalés J, Rose N, Viñas MJ, Blanchard P, Madec F, Jestin A, Casal J, Domingo M. An exploratory study on risk factors for postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) in Spain. Prev Vet Med. 2005;69(1–2):97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.11.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rose N, Larour G, Le Diguerher G, Eveno E, Jolly JP, Blanchard P, Oger A, Le Dimna M, Jestin A, Madec F. Risk factors for porcine post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome (PMWS) in 149 French farrow-to-finish herds. Prev Vet Med. 2003;61(3):209–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2003.07.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Poulsen Nautrup B, Van Vlaenderen I, Mah C, Angulo J. Do high levels of maternally derived antibodies interfere with the vaccination of piglets against porcine circovirus type 2? A literature review and data analysis. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(8):923. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9080923.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Feng H, Segalés J, Fraile L, López-Soria S, Sibila M. Effect of high and low levels of maternally derived antibodies on porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) infection dynamics and production parameters in PCV2 vaccinated pigs under field conditions. Vaccine. 2016;34(27):3044–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.088.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fort M, Sibila M, Allepuz A, Mateu E, Roerink F, Segalés J. Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccination of conventional pigs prevents viremia against PCV2 isolates of different genotypes and geographic origins. Vaccine. 2008;26(8):1063–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.12.019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Opriessnig T, Patterson AR, Elsener J, Meng XJ, Halbur PG. Influence of maternal antibodies on efficacy of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccination to protect pigs from experimental infection with PCV2. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008;15(3):397–401. https://doi.org/10.1128/CVI.00416-07.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pleguezuelos P, Sibila M, Cuadrado R, López-Jiménez R, Pérez D, Huerta E, Llorens AM, Núñez JI, Segalés J, López-Soria S. Exploratory field study on the effects of porcine circovirus 2 (PCV-2) sow vaccination at different physiological stages mimicking blanket vaccination. Porcine Health Manag. 2021;7(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-021-00213-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Maity HK, Samanta K, Deb R, Gupta VK. Revisiting porcine circovirus infection: recent insights and its significance in the piggery sector. Vaccines. 2023;11:1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11081308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kang SJ, Bae SM, Lee HJ, Jeong YJ, Lee MA, You SH, Lee HS, Hyun BH, Lee N, Cha SH. Porcine Circovirus (PCV) Genotype 2d-Based Virus-like Particles (VLPs) Induced Broad Cross-Neutralizing Antibodies against Diverse Genotypes and Provided Protection in Dual-Challenge Infection of a PCV2d Virus and a Type 1 Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV). Pathogens. 2021;10(9):1145. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10091145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Holtkamp DJ, Kliebenstein JB, Neumann EJ, Zimmerman JJ, Rotto HF, Yoder TK, et al. Assessment of the economic impact of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus on United States pork producers. J Swine Health Prod. 2013;21:72–84.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lunney JK, Benfield DA, Rowland RR. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus: an update on an emerging and re-emerging viral disease of swine. Virus Res. 2010;154(1–2):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2010.10.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nathues H, Alarcon P, Rushton J, Jolie R, Fiebig K, Jimenez M, et al. Cost of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus at individual farm level - an economic disease model. Prev Vet Med. 2017;142:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.04.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nieuwenhuis N, Duinhof TF, Van Nes A. Papers: economic analysis of outbreaks of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus in nine sow herds. Vet Rec. 2012;170:225. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.100101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lunney JK, Fang Y, Ladinig A, Chen N, Li Y, Rowland B, Renukaradhya GJ. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV): pathogenesis and interaction with the immune system. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2016;4:129–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-111025.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Martín-Valls GE, Cortey M, Allepuz A, Illas F, Tello M, Mateu E. Introduction of a PRRSV-1 strain of increased virulence in a pig production structure in Spain: virus evolution and impact on production. Porcine Health Manag. 2023;9(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-022-00298-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Niederwerder MC, Jaing CJ, Thissen JB, Cino-Ozuna AG, McLoughlin KS, Rowland RRR. Microbiome associations in pigs with the best and worst clinical outcomes following co-infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2). Vet Microbiol. 2016;188:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.03.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ouyang T, Zhang X, Liu X, Ren L. Co-infection of swine with porcine circovirus type 2 and other swine viruses. Viruses. 2019;11(2):185. https://doi.org/10.3390/v11020185.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen N, Huang Y, Ye M, Li S, Xiao Y, Cui B, Zhu J. Co-infection status of classical swine fever virus (CSFV), porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and porcine circoviruses (PCV2 and PCV3) in eight regions of China from 2016 to 2018. Infect Genet Evol. 2019;68:127–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.12.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Drolet R, Larochelle R, Morin M, Delisle B, Magar R. Detection rates of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, porcine circovirus type 2, and swine influenza virus in porcine proliferative and necrotizing pneumonia. Vet Pathol. 2003;40(2):143–8. https://doi.org/10.1354/vp.40-2-143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhao D, Yang B, Yuan X, Shen C, Zhang D, Shi X, Zhang T, Cui H, Yang J, Chen X, Hao Y, Zheng H, Zhang K, Liu X. advanced research in porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus co-infection with other pathogens in swine. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:699561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.699561

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Canelli E, Catella A, Borghetti P, Ferrari L, Ogno G, De Angelis E, Corradi A, Passeri B, Bertani V, Sandri G, Bonilauri P, Leung FC, Guazzetti S, Martelli P. Phenotypic characterization of a highly pathogenic Italian porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) type 1 subtype 1 isolate in experimentally infected pigs. Vet Microbiol. 2017;210:124–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (MAPA). El sector de la carne de cerdo en cifras: principales indicadores económicos. 2022. https://www.mapa.gob.es/gl/ganaderia/estadisticas/indicadoreseconomicossectorporcino2022_tcm37-564427.pdf Accessed 23 Nov 2023.

  35. Cortey M, Napp S, Alba A, Pileri E, Grau-Roma L, Sibila M, Segalés J. Theoretical and experimental approaches to estimate the usefulness of pooled serum samples for the diagnosis of postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2011;23(2):233–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063871102300206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rovira A, Clement T, Christopher-Hennings J, Thompson B, Engle M, Reicks D, Muñoz-Zanzi C. Evaluation of the sensitivity of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction to detect porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus on individual and pooled samples from boars. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2007;19(5):502–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063870701900507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nielsen GB, Nielsen JP, Haugegaard J, Denwood MJ, Houe H. Effect of vaccination against sub-clinical Porcine Circovirus type 2 infection in a high-health finishing pig herd: a randomised clinical field trial. Prev Vet Med. 2017;141:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Harding JC, Baker CD, Tumber A, McIntosh KA, Parker SE, Middleton DM, Hill JE, Ellis JA, Krakowka S. Porcine circovirus-2 DNA concentration distinguishes wasting from nonwasting pigs and is correlated with lesion distribution, severity, and nucleocapsid staining intensity. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2008;20(3):274–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/104063870802000303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dieste-Pérez L, van Nes A, van Maanen K, Duinhof T, Tobias T. The prevalence of PCV2 viremia in newborn piglets on four endemically infected Dutch sow farms is very low. Prev Vet Med. 2018;153:42–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Eddicks M, Koeppen M, Willi S, Fux R, Reese S, Sutter G, Stadler J, Ritzmann M. Low prevalence of porcine circovirus type 2 infections in farrowing sows and corresponding pre-suckling piglets in southern German pig farms. Vet Microbiol. 2016;187:70–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.03.010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dvorak C, Lilla M, Baker S, Murtaugh M. Multiple routes of porcine circovirus type 2 transmission to piglets in the presence of maternal immunity. Vet Microbiol. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2013.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shen H, Wang C, Madson DM, Opriessnig T. High prevalence of porcine circovirus viremia in newborn piglets in five clinically normal swine breeding herds in North America. Prev Vet Med. 2010;97(3–4):228–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.09.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Figueras-Gourgues S, Fraile L, Segalés J, Hernández-Caravaca I, López-Úbeda R, García-Vázquez FA, Gomez-Duran O, Grosse-Liesner B. Effect of Porcine circovirus 2 (PCV-2) maternally derived antibodies on performance and PCV-2 viremia in vaccinated piglets under field conditions. Porcine Health Manag. 2019;5:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-019-0128-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Larochelle R, Magar R, D’Allaire S. Comparative serologic and virologic study of commercial swine herds with and without postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome. Can J Vet Res. 2003;67(2):114–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. McKeown NE, Opriessnig T, Thomas P, Guenette DK, Elvinger F, Fenaux M, Halbur PG, Meng XJ. Effects of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) maternal antibodies on experimental infection of piglets with PCV2. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2005;12(11):1347–51. https://doi.org/10.1128/CDLI.12.11.1347-1351.2005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Rodríguez-Arrioja GM, Segalés J, Calsamiglia M, Resendes AR, Balasch M, Plana-Duran J, Casal J, Domingo M. Dynamics of porcine circovirus type 2 infection in a herd of pigs with postweaning multisystemic wasting syndrome. Am J Vet Res. 2002;63(3):354–7. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2002.63.354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Martín-Valls GE, Cortey M, Allepuz A, Illas F, Tello M, Mateu E. Description of a new clade within subtype 1 of betaarterivirus suid 1 causing severe outbreaks in Spain. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2022;11(7):e0030422. https://doi.org/10.1128/mra.00304-22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Butler JE, Lager KM, Golde W, Faaberg KS, Sinkora M, Loving C, Zhang YI. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS): an immune dysregulatory pandemic. Immunol Res. 2014;59:81–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12026-014-8549-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Park C, Seo HW, Park SJ, Han K, Chae C. Comparison of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2)-associated lesions produced by co-infection between two genotypes of PCV2 and two genotypes of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. J Gen Virol. 2014;95:2486–94. https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.066290-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Shi K, Li H, Guo X, Ge X, Jia H, Zheng S, Yang H. Changes in peripheral blood leukocyte subpopulations in piglets co-infected experimentally with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus and porcine circovirus type 2. Vet Microbiol. 2008;129(3–4):367–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.11.020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Mònica Sagrera is holder of an Industrial Doctorat grant from the Catalan Government (Spain), with the reference Nº. 2022 DI 56.

Funding

No specific funding was received to complete this study since it is a compilation of routinary monitoring of farms.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mònica Sagrera and Laura Garza-Moreno contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRTA. Programa de Sanitat Animal, Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA, IRTA-UAB), Campus de La UAB, 08193, Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain

    Mònica Sagrera & Marina Sibila

  2. Unitat Mixta d’Investigació IRTA-UAB en Sanitat Animal, Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA), Campus de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

    Mònica Sagrera, Marina Sibila & Joaquim Segalés

  3. Ceva Salud Animal, Avenida Diagonal, 609-615, 08028, Barcelona, Spain

    Mònica Sagrera, Laura Garza-Moreno, Salvador Oliver-Ferrando, Sonia Cárceles, Carlos Casanovas & David Espigares

  4. WOAH Collaborating Center for Research and Control of Emerging and Re-Emerging Pig Diseases (IRTA-CReSA), 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

    Marina Sibila & Joaquim Segalés

  5. Inga Food S.A., Ronda de Poniente, 9, 28760, Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain

    Patricia Prieto & Alberto García-Flores

  6. Departament de Sanitat i Anatomia Animals, Facultat de Veterinària, UAB, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

    Joaquim Segalés

Authors
  1. Mònica Sagrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Garza-Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina Sibila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salvador Oliver-Ferrando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sonia Cárceles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carlos Casanovas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patricia Prieto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alberto García-Flores
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David Espigares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Joaquim Segalés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LGM and DE designed the study; SOF, SC, CC, PP, AGF and LGM took the samples. MSC, MS, LGM and JS analysed the results. MSC drafted the manuscript and all authors revised it.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joaquim Segalés.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable, since analysed samples corresponded to farm routine monitoring.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Mònica Sagrera, Laura Garza-Moreno, Salvador Oliver-Ferrando, Sonia Cárceles, Carlos Casanovas and David Espigares are employees of Ceva Salud Animal.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

. Supplementary materials of the study "Frequency of PCV-2 viremia in nursery piglets from a Spanish swine integration system in 2020 and 2022 considering PRRSV infection status". 

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sagrera, M., Garza-Moreno, L., Sibila, M. et al. Frequency of PCV-2 viremia in nursery piglets from a Spanish swine integration system in 2020 and 2022 considering PRRSV infection status. Porc Health Manag 10, 4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00354-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-024-00354-0

Keywords

Porcine Health Management

ISSN: 2055-5660

Contact us