The recently emerged PRRSV 1-4-4 L1C variant (L1C.5) was in vivo and in vitro characterized in this study in comparison with three other contemporary 1-4-4 isolates (L1C.1, L1A, and L1H) and one 1-7-4 L1A isolate. Seventy-two 3-week-old PRRSV-naive pigs were divided into six groups with twelve pigs/group. Forty-eight pigs (eight/group) were for inoculation, and 24 pigs (four/group) served as contact pigs. Pigs in pen A of each room were inoculated with the corresponding virus or negative media. At two days post inoculation (DPI), contact pigs were added to pen B adjacent to pen A in each room. Pigs were necropsied at 10 and 28 DPI. Compared to other virus-inoculated groups, the L1C.5-inoculated pigs exhibited more severe anorexia and lethargy, higher mortality, a higher fraction of pigs with fever (>40 °C), higher average temperature at several DPIs, and higher viremia levels at 2 DPI. A higher percentage of the contact pigs in the L1C.5 group became viremic at two days post contact, implying the higher transmissibility of this virus strain. It was also found that some PRRSV isolates caused brain infection in inoculation pigs and/or contact pigs. The complete genome sequences and growth characteristics in ZMAC cells of five PRRSV-2 isolates were further compared. Collectively, this study confirms that the PRRSV 1-4-4 L1C variant (L1C.5) is highly virulent with potential higher transmissibility, but the genetic determinants of virulence remain to be elucidated.

We characterized the effect of 1) temperature × time, 2) freeze-thaw cycles, and 3) high porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RNA concentrations on the detection of PRRSV and a porcine-specific internal sample control (ISC) in serum, oral fluid, and fecal samples using a commercial PRRSV RT-rtPCR assay (Idexx). In study 1, the effect of temperature × time on PRRSV and ISC detection was shown to be specimen dependent. In serum stored at 4, 10, or 20°C, PRRSV detection was consistent for up to 168 h, but storage at 30°C reduced detectable PRRSV RNA. ISC RNA was stable in serum held at 4 and 10°C, but not at 20 and 30°C. In contrast, PRRSV and ISC RNAs in oral fluid and fecal samples continuously decreased at all temperature × time treatments. Based on these data, serum samples should be stored at ≤ 20°C to optimize PRRSV RNA detection. Oral fluid and fecal samples should be frozen in a non–self-defrosting freezer until tested. In study 2, freeze-thaw cycles had little impact on PRRSV and ISC detection, but more so in oral fluids than serum or fecal samples. Thus, freeze-thaw cycles in oral fluids should be minimized before RT-rtPCR testing. In study 3, the ISC was not affected by high concentrations of PRRSV RNA in serum, oral fluid, or fecal samples. It should not be assumed that data from our PRRSV study are applicable to other pathogens; additional pathogen-specific studies are required.

Normalization, the process of controlling for normal variation in sampling and testing, can be achieved in real-time PCR assays by converting sample quantification cycles (Cqs) to “efficiency standardized Cqs” (ECqs). We calculated ECqs as E^−ΔCq, where E is amplification efficiency and ΔCq is the difference between sample and reference standard Cqs. To apply this approach to a commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RT-qPCR assay, we created reference standards by rehydrating and then diluting (1 × 10⁻⁴) a PRRSV modified-live vaccine (PRRS MLV; Ingelvac) with serum or oral fluid (OF) to match the sample matrix to be tested. Sample ECqs were calculated using the mean E and reference standard Cq calculated from the 4 reference standards on each plate. Serum ( n = 132) and OF ( n = 130) samples were collected from each of 12 pigs vaccinated with a PRRSV MLV from −7 to 42 d post-vaccination, tested, and sample Cqs converted to ECqs. Mean plate Es were 1.75–2.6 for serum and 1.7–2.3 for OF. Mean plate reference standard Cqs were 29.1–31.3 for serum and 29.2–31.5 for OFs. Receiver operating characteristic analysis calculated the area under the curve for serum and OF sample ECqs as 0.999 (95% CI: 0.997, 1.000) and 0.947 (0.890, 1.000), respectively. For serum, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the commercial PRRSV RT-qPCR assay were estimated as 97.9% and 100% at an ECq cutoff ≥ 0.20, and for OF, 82.6% and 100%, respectively, at an ECq cutoff ≥ 0.45.

Successful downstream molecular analyses of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) in diagnostic laboratories, e.g., reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) or next-generation sequencing, are dependent on the quality of the RNA in the specimen. In swine specimens, preserving the integrity of RNA requires proper sample handling at the time the sample is collected on the farm, during transport, and in the laboratory until RNA extraction is performed. Options for proper handling are limited to maintaining the cold chain or using commercial specimen storage matrices. Herein, we reviewed the refereed literature for evidence that commercial specimen storage matrices can play a role in preserving swine viral RNA in clinical specimens. Refereed publications were included if they compared RNA detection in matrix-treated vs. untreated samples. At present, the small number of refereed studies and the inconsistency in reported results preclude the routine use of commercial specimen storage matrices. For example, specimen storage matrices may be useful under specific circumstances, e.g., where it is mandatory to render the virus inactive. In a broader view, statistically sound side-by-side comparisons between specimens, viral RNA targets, and storage conditions are needed to establish if, when, and how commercial specimen storage matrices could be used in diagnostic medicine.

Endogenous reference genes are used in gene-expression studies to “normalize” the results and, increasingly, as internal sample controls (ISC) in diagnostic quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Three studies were conducted to evaluate the performance of a porcine-specific ISC in a commercial porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) reverse transcription-qPCR. Study 1 evaluated the species specificity of the ISC by testing serum from seven non-porcine domestic species (n = 34). In Study 2, the constancy of ISC detection over time (≥42 days) was assessed in oral fluid (n = 130), serum (n = 215), and feces (n = 132) collected from individual pigs of known PRRSV status. In Study 3, serum (n = 150), oral fluid (n = 150), and fecal samples (n = 75 feces, 75 fecal swabs) from commercial herds were used to establish ISC reference limits. Study 1 showed that the ISC was porcine-specific, i.e., all samples from non-porcine species were ISC negative (n = 34). In Study 2, the ISC was detected in all oral fluid, serum, and fecal samples, but differed in concentration between specimens (p < 0.05; mixed-effects regression model). The results of Study 3 were used to establish ISC reference limits for the 5th, 2.5th and 1.25th percentiles. Overall, the ISC response was consistent to the point that failure in detection is sufficient justification for re-testing and/or re-sampling.

Based on publications reporting improvements in real-time PCR (rtPCR) performance, we compared protocols based on heat treatment or dilution followed by direct rtPCR to standard extraction and amplification methods for the detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), influenza A virus (IAV), porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), or Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (MHP) in swine oral fluids (OFs). In part A, we subjected aliquots of positive OF samples to 1 of 4 protocols: protocol 1: heat (95°C × 30 min) followed by direct rtPCR; protocol 2: heat and cool (25°C × 20 min) followed by direct rtPCR; protocol 3: heat, cool, extraction, and rtPCR; protocol 4 (control): extraction and then rtPCR. In part B, positive OF samples were split into 3, diluted (D1 = 1:2 with Tris–borate–EDTA (TBE); D2 = 1:2 with negative OF; D3 = not diluted), and then tested by rtPCR using the best-performing protocol from part A (protocol 4). In part A, with occasional exceptions, heat treatment resulted in marked reduction in the detection of target and internal sample control (ISC) nucleic acids. In part B, sample dilution with TBE or OF produced no improvement in the detection of targets and ISCs. Thus, standard extraction and amplification methods provided superior detection of PRRSV, IAV, PEDV, and MHP nucleic acids in OFs.