Molecular characterization and comparison of diagnostic methods for bovine respiratory viruses (BPIV-3, BRSV, BVDV, and BoHV-1) in field samples in northwestern Turkey


Toker E. B. , Yeşilbağ K.

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION, vol.53, no.1, 2021 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 53 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s11250-020-02489-y
  • Title of Journal : TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
  • Keywords: BRD, Diagnosis, BPIV-3, BRSV, BVDV, BoHV-1, PCR, Molecular characterization, Virus isolation, ELISA, DIARRHEA-VIRUS, SYNCYTIAL VIRUS, DISEASE, INFECTIONS, CALVES, BHV-1, SEROPREVALENCE, CATTLE, PCR

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the compatibility among virus isolation (VI), ELISA, and PCR for diagnosis of the major viral agents (BPIV-3, BRSV, BVDV, and BoHV-1) responsible for BRD in the field samples. For that purpose, a total of 193 samples (133 nasal swabs and 60 lung tissue samples) from cattle with respiratory signs in northwestern Turkey were examined. For VI, all the samples were inoculated at least 3 blind passages onto MDBK cell culture. In addition, the samples were tested by hemadsorption assay and RT-PCR for BPIV-3; nested RT-PCR for BRSV; immunoperoxidase monolayer assay, antigen-ELISA, and RT-PCR for BVDV; and antigen-ELISA and PCR for BoHV-1. The detected 1 (0.52%) BPIV-3 isolate was found to be in the genotype BPIV-3c. No BRSV isolate could be obtained, while 5 (2.59%) samples were evaluated positive in nested-RT PCR. The presence of BVDV antigen in 10 (5.18%) samples and the BVDV genome in 5 (2.59%) samples were detected, while non-cytopathogenic BVDV isolates were obtained only in 2 (1.04%) samples. The detected BVDV strains fell into the genetic clusters of BVDV-1a, -1f, and -1l. For detection of BoHV-1, although viral isolation and Ag-ELISA results were negative, presence of BoHV-1.1 genome was detected in 2 (1.04%) samples. By the results of VI, ELISA, and PCRs, 10.88% (21/193) of samples were found positive for the evaluated viruses. Depending on the obtained data, combined uses of the diagnostic methods were evaluated to be more reliable for routine diagnosis of bovine respiratory viruses.