A survey on the occurrence of <i>Brachyspira pilosicoli</i> and <i>Brachyspira hyodysenteriae </i>in growing-finishing pigs

Arkadiusz Dors; Ewelina Czyżewska-Dors; Grzegorz Woźniakowski

doi:10.12688/f1000research.20639.3

Home Browse A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Brief Report

Revised

A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs

[version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Arkadiusz Dors ¹, Ewelina Czyżewska-Dors¹, Grzegorz Woźniakowski¹

PUBLISHED 01 Apr 2021

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Swine Diseases, National Veterinary Research Institute, Puławy, 24-100, Poland

Arkadiusz Dors
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ewelina Czyżewska-Dors
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Grzegorz Woźniakowski
Roles: Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: The major pathogenic intestinal spirochetes affecting pigs during the growing- finishing stage of production include Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Brachyspira pilosicoli. The aim of this study was to assess the current occurrence of B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli in Polish pig herds. Moreover, associations between the presence of diarrhea or other intestinal pathogens and occurrence of B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli in pigs were investigated.
Methods: Between January 2017 and August 2019, a total of 401 samples of pig feces from 95 different herds were submitted to the National Veterinary Research Institute of Poland. These samples were obtained from pigs older than 7 weeks. All the received fecal samples were examined for the presence of B. hyodysenteriae, B. pilosicoli and Lawsonia intracellularis by real-time PCR.
Results: B. pilosicoli was detected in 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5–7.0%) (18/401) of pig fecal samples. At the herd level 13.7% (95% CI, 7.5–22.3%) (13/95) of herds were positive for B. pilosicoli. B. hyodysenteriae was detected in 7.0% (95% CI, 4.7–9.9%) (28/401) of pig fecal samples and 18.9% (95% CI, 11.6–28.3%) (18/95) of pig herds were positive. Out of 18 B. pilosicoli positive samples, this pathogen was detected alone in 5 samples; simultaneously with L. intracellularis in 9 samples; simultaneously with B. hyodysenteriae in 1 sample and in 3 samples was detected simultaneously with both of these bacteria. The presence of B. hyodysenteriae in fecal samples was associated with the presence of diarrhea in pigs.
Conclusions: This study confirmed that B. pilosicoli infections occur in Polish pig herds, but the prevalence is at a low level and the presence of B. pilosicoli is not associated with the development of diarrhea in pigs. B. hyodysenteriae is still a common cause of diarrhea among pigs from Polish herds.

Keywords

Brachyspira pilosicoli, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae, Lawsonia intracellularis, pigs, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea

Corresponding author: Arkadiusz Dors

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: Funded by KNOW (Leading National Research Centre) Scientific Consortium “Healthy Animal - Safe Food”, decision of Ministry of Science and Higher Education No. 05-1/KNOW2/2015.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2021 Dors A 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 work is properly cited.

How to cite: Dors A, Czyżewska-Dors E and Woźniakowski G. A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 8:1702 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20639.3) First published: 30 Sep 2019, 8:1702 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20639.1) Latest published: 01 Apr 2021, 8:1702 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20639.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

In the sentence "Out of 18 B. pilosicoli positive samples, this pathogen was detected alone in 5 samples" “this” has been replaced with “the”.

In the sentence "The subclinical colonization of pigs, with B. pilosicoli is not uncommon and has been detected in several farms." Comma has been removed.

In the sentence "The second group was made up of samples (n=70) from pigs with clinical sings." Correction of "sings" to "signs" has been made.

The sentence "Besides, B. pilosicoli tests were performed in July and August 2019." has been rephrased.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Matheus costa
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Roberto M.C. Guedes
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Francesca Piras

Introduction

The question of routine surveillance to monitor Brachyspira species infections in pigs at local, national and international levels is addressed by experts and authorities (Hampson et al., 2015). The major pathogenic intestinal spirochetes affecting pigs during the growing-finishing stage of production include Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Brachyspira pilosicoli. B. hyodysenteriae is the cause of swine dysentery (SD) – a severe, enteric disease of pigs characterized by mucohemorrhagic diarrhea and inflammation in the large intestine. B. hyodysenteriae is present worldwide and affects the economics of pig production, resulting in mortality, growth rate losses and substantial antibiotic costs. Another brachyspiral disease with mild colitis and diarrhea is porcine intestinal spirochetosis or porcine colonic spirochetosis (PIS/PCS). B. pilosicoli is the causative agent of PIS/PCS, a disease that implies an important economic cost resulting from reduced growth performance and poor feed conversion (Duhamel, 1998). Most Brachyspira species have a restricted host range, whereas B. pilosicoli colonizes a wide range of hosts, including humans, and has the potential for interspecies transmission. There is also a potential for zoonotic transmission, especially in places where animals and humans live in close proximity, or in people working with intensively farmed pigs or chickens, due to the increased risk of exposure. Some species of the genus Brachyspira, including B. pilosicoli, can cause the disease in humans. There are a few reports on B. pilosicoli-associated human intestinal spirochetosis (HIS) (Hampson, 2018). The subclinical colonization of pigs with B. pilosicoli is not uncommon and has been detected in several farms (Biksi et al., 2007). On other farms, B. pilosicoli were isolated from diseased pigs as the only causative agent or simultaneously with other enteric pathogens as part of a mixed infection (Reiner et al., 2011; Stege et al., 2000).

Recent changes in the management of pig farms and the movement of pigs within the EU have resulted in a shift in the relative prevalence of pathogenic Brachyspira species. There are very few studies addressing the prevalence of B. hyodysenteriae in pigs in Poland and only one concerning B. pilosicoli (Pławińska et al., 2004). The aim of the study was to assess the current occurrence of B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli in Polish pig herds. Moreover, associations between the presence of diarrhea or other intestinal pathogens and the occurrence of B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli in pigs were investigated.

Methods

Fecal samples

Fecal samples used in this study were submitted to the Department of Swine Diseases of the National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI) for commercial laboratory diagnostics of selected porcine bacterial pathogens. Between January 2017 and August 2019, a total of 401 samples of pig feces were submitted to the NVRI. These samples originated from 95 different Polish pig herds, from pigs older than 7 weeks. All received fecal samples were submitted to the NVRI to be examined for the presence of B. hyodysenteriae and/or Lawsonia intracellularis. At that time, none of the diagnostic tools for B. pilosicoli identification were available for NVRI customers.

Owing to differing reasons for testing submitted fecal samples, three groups were distinguished. The first group of samples (n=218) were obtained from pigs subjected to routine monitoring of herds free of one or both of the aforementioned pathogens (B. hyodysenteriae, L. intracellularis). The second group was made up of samples (n=70) from pigs with clinical signs of diarrhea, where B. hyodysenteriae or L. intracellularis was suspected to be a cause of disease. The last group of samples (n=113) was submitted to the laboratory due to unrecognized pathogen status and a history of diarrhea in the herd.

DNA extraction and PCR

Total genomic DNA was extracted from the fecal samples using a commercial isolation kit (Genomic Mini, A&A Biotechnology, Gdynia, Poland), according to manufacturer’s recommendations. Extracted DNA samples were stored at -20°C until examination. All samples were tested by separate singleplex real-time PCR assays for B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis immediately after samples submission according to the methods described previously (Zmudzki et al., 2012). Detection of B. pilosicoli by real-time PCR was performed in July and August 2019 (Ståhl et al., 2011). Primers were obtained from a commercial source (Genomed S.A., Poland). The sequences of primers and probes are as follows: for B. hyodysenteriae (forward primer: 5'-TATGAAGAAGGCAGCAGACGTTTAT-3', reverse primer: 5'-GTAGGAAGAAGAAATCTGACAATGCA-3', probe: 5'-FAM-ACACAATCATGCTGAAGC-TAMRA-3') (Akase et al., 2009); for B. pilosicoli (forward primer: 5'-GTAGTCGATGGGAAACAGGT-3', reverse primer: 5'-TTACTCACCACAAGTCTCGG-3', probe: 5'-FAM-TATTCGACGAGGATAACCATCACCT-BHQ-1-3') (Ståhl et al., 2011); for L. intracellularis (forward primer: 5'-GCGCGCGTAGGTGGTTATAT-3', reverse primer: 5'-GCCACCCTCTCCGATACTCA-3', probe: 5'-FAM-CACCGCTTAACGGTGGAACAGCCTT-TAMRA-3’) (Lindecrona et al., 2002). All assays were carried out using the Rotor-Gene Q real-time PCR system (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).

Real-time PCR assays were run using a commercially available master mix Quantitect Probe PCR kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). For B. hyodysenteriae, 12.5 μl of the master mix was combined with 0.5 μl of each primer, diluted to 20 μM and 0.5 μl of the probe, diluted to 20 μM and 6 μl of DNase-free water. The DNA template was added at 5 μl per reaction for a total reaction volume of 25 μl. PCR was run, as follows: 95°C for 15 mins, followed by 50 cycles at 95°C for 15 secs and 52°C for 1 min. For B. pilosicoli, 12.5 μl of the master mix was combined with 0.5 μl of each primer, diluted to 20 μM and 0.5 μl of the probe, diluted to 10 μM and 8 μl of DNase-free water. The DNA template was added at 3 μl per reaction for a total reaction volume of 25 μl. PCR was run as follows: 95°C for 15 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec and 60°C for 1 min. For L. intracellularis, 12.5 μl of the master mix was combined with 0.5 μl of each primer, diluted to 20 μM and 0.5 μl of the probe, diluted to 20 μM and 6 μl of DNase-free water. The DNA template was added at 5 μl per reaction for a total reaction volume of 25 μl. PCR was run as follows: 95°C for 15 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec and 62°C for 1 min.

Statistical analysis

A herd was defined as positive when at least one fecal sample taken from the herd had a positive PCR result. Percentages of positive samples/herds with a 95% two-sides exact binominal confidence interval (CI) were reported. Differences in the presence of pathogens between different fecal samples groups and association with L. intracellularis infection were established by a chi-square test (statistically significant at p < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections of the p-values were performed.

Results

Among a total of 401 samples 218 were submitted to the NVRI laboratory for the routine monitoring of pig herds. Of these, 70 samples originated from pigs with the clinical manifestation of diarrhea. The remaining 113 samples originated from herds with a history of diarrhea but of an unknown status, in terms of Brachyspira spp. occurrence. Underlying data are available on figshare (Dors et al., 2019).

B. pilosicoli was detected in 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5–7.0%) (18/401) of pig fecal samples. At the herd level 13.7% (95% CI, 7.5–22.3%) (13/95) of herds were positive for B. pilosicoli. B. hyodysenteriae was detected in 7.0% (95% CI, 4.7–9.9%) (28/401) of pig fecal samples and 18.9% (95% CI, 11.6–28.3%) (18/95) of pig herds were positive.

Out of 18 B. pilosicoli positive samples, the pathogen was detected alone in 5 samples; simultaneously with L. intracellularis in 9 samples; simultaneously with B. hyodysenteriae in 1 sample and in 3 samples was detected simultaneously with both of these bacteria.

Differences in the presence of B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli in the fecal samples of various origin (pigs with diarrhea, herds with a history of diarrhea, routine monitoring) are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The differences in the presence of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Brachyspira pilosicoli in fecal samples obtained from healthy pigs and pigs with diarrhea.

Group of fecal samples	Positive samples, %
Group of fecal samples	B. hyodysenteriae	B. pilosicoli
Pig with diarrhea	22.8%*	2.9%
Herds with history of diarrhea	1.8%	1.8%
Routine monitoring	6.3%	6.9%

*Statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between sample groups.

Additional analyses were completed to compare the influence of L. intracellularis infection and the presence of Brachyspira spp., in fecal samples. The occurrence of B. hyodysenteriae in pigs whose feces was confirmed to be positive for L. intracellularis was 7.3% (9/123), compared to 6.8% (19/278) in pigs negative for L. intracellularis with no statistical significance (p=0.861). However, considering the simultaneous occurrence of B. pilosicoli and L. intracellularis, we found that the percentage of samples positive for B. pilosicoli was significantly higher in pigs simultaneously infected by L. intracellularis 9.8% (12/123) compared to L. intracellularis-negative pigs 2.2% (6/278) (p<0.001).

Discussion and conclusions

The results of this study show that B. pilosicoli infections occur in Polish pig herds more frequently than it has been thought so far. A previous study reported only one positive sample among 127 samples from 23 pig farms (Pławińska et al., 2004). Our results show that B. pilosicoli is present in Polish pig herds, but that the prevalence is low, reaching 13.7% of herds and 4.5% of samples. Notably, considerably higher prevalence of B. pilosicoli infection has been detected in other countries, such as Germany (31.6%, Reiner et al., 2011), Denmark (19%, Stege et al., 2000) and Hungary (61.3%, Biksi et al., 2007). Therefore, the targeted sampling of pigs from age groups in which detection of this pathogen is most likely and random selection of Polish pig herds is necessary to assess the true prevalence of B. pilosicoli.

An association between B. pilosicoli infections in pigs and the occurrence of diarrhea in this study was not confirmed. Our results are in line with some previous reports (Biksi et al., 2007; Weber et al., 2015), but other authors have demonstrated positive associations between presence of diarrhea and B. pilosicoli detection (Fellström et al., 1996; Stege et al., 2001). It seems that the subclinical colonization of pigs by B. pilosicoli is predominant in pigs, in Poland. Considering the causality of PIS/PCS, other factors causing the development of diarrhea in pigs, besides the B. pilosicoli infection, should be considered. B. pilosicoli colonization and/or disease expression can be influenced by diet (Hopwood et al., 2002; Stege et al., 2001). Moreover, concurrent infection can influence B. pilosicoli colonization and disease manifestation.

In our study, we have found that samples positive for L. intracellularis are more likely to be positive with B. pilosicoli. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies (Biksi et al., 2007; Jacobson et al., 2003; Jacobson et al., 2005; Merialdi et al., 2003). Therefore, there is a need for further investigation to determine a risk factors and an association between the presence of B. pilosicoli in feces and the clinical signs or pig performance.

The occurrence of B. hyodysenteriae in our investigation was more common than B. pilosicoli and was higher than reported previously (Dors et al., 2015). Current results on the prevalence of B. hyodysenteriae could be biased, due to the large number of samples submitted to the NVRI with suspected clinical SD. Nonetheless, SD is still a common cause of diarrhea among pigs from Polish herds, despite improving biosecurity, management and disease control.

In conclusion, our study shows that B. pilosicoli infections occur in Polish pig herds, but the prevalence is at a low level and the presence of B. pilosicoli is not associated with the development of diarrhea in pigs. Secondly, B. hyodysenteriae is still a common cause of diarrhea among pigs from Polish herds. Moreover infection of L. intracellularis might be predisposing factor for B. pilosicoli occurrence in pigs.

Data availability

Figshare: A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9878612.v1 (Dors et al., 2019).

This project contains data on detection of infection with each pathogen studied for each sample. 1, yes; 0, no.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our gratitude to the veterinary practitioners who supplied us with fecal samples.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Akase S, Uchitani Y, Sohmura Y, et al.: Application of real time PCR for diagnosis of Swine Dysentery. J Vet Med Sci. 2009; 71(3): 359–362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Biksi I, Lőrincz M, Molnár B, et al.: Prevalence of selected enteropathogenic bacteria in Hungarian finishing pigs. Acta Vet Hung. 2007; 55(2): 219–227. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Dors A, Czyżewska-Dors E, Woźniakowski G: A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs. figshare. Dataset. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9878612.v1
Dors A, Pomorska-Mól M, Czyżewska E, et al.: Prevalence and risk factors for Lawsonia intracellularis, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Salmonella spp. in finishing pigs in Polish farrow-to-finish swine herds. Pol J Vet Sci. 2015; 18(4): 825–831. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Duhamel GE: Colonic spirochetosis caused by Serpulina pilosicoli. Vet Med Large Anim Prac. 1998; 19: 14–22.
Fellström C, Pettersson B, Johansson KE, et al.: Prevalence of Serpulina species in relation to diarrhea and feed medication in pig-rearing herds in Sweden. Am J Vet Res. 1996; 57(6): 807–811. PubMed Abstract
Hampson DJ: The Spirochete Brachyspira pilosicoli, Enteric Pathogen of Animals and Humans. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018; 31(1): pii: e00087-17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Hampson DJ, La T, Phillips ND: Emergence of Brachyspira species and strains: reinforcing the need for surveillance. Porcine Health Manag. 2015; 1: 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Hopwood DE, Pethick DW, Hampson DJ: Increasing the viscosity of the intestinal contents stimulates proliferation of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Brachyspira pilosicoli in weaner pigs. Br J Nutr. 2002; 88(5): 523–532. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Jacobson M, Gerth Löfstedt M, Holmgren N, et al.: The prevalences of Brachyspira spp. and Lawsonia intracellularis in Swedish piglet producing herds and wild boar population. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2005; 52(9): 386–391. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Jacobson M, Hård af Segerstad C, Gunnarsson A, et al.: Diarrhoea in the growing pig - a comparison of clinical, morphological and microbial findings between animals from good and poor performance herds. Res Vet Sci. 2003; 74(2): 163–169. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Lindecrona RH, Jensen TK, Andersen PH, et al.: Application of a 5' nuclease assay for detection of Lawsonia intracellularis in fecal samples from pigs. J Clin Microbiol. 2002; 40(3): 984–987. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Merialdi G, Bonilauri P, Granelli F, et al.: Bacterial pathogens in field cases of clinical colitis in growing and finishing pigs in Italy. Vet Rec. 2003; 153(17): 529–530. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Pławińska J, Jakubowski T, Rzewuska M, et al.: Occurrence of Lawsonia Intracellularis and Brachyspira spp. infection in swine suffering from diarrhoea. Pol J Vet Sci. 2004; 7(3): 203–206. PubMed Abstract
Reiner G, Hillen S, von Berg S, et al.: Analysis of bacterial load and prevalence of mixed infections with Lawsonia intracellularis, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and/or Brachyspira pilosicoli in German pigs with diarrhoea. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2011; 124(5–6): 236–241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Ståhl M, Kokotovic B, Hjulsager CK, et al.: The use of quantitative PCR for identification and quantification of Brachyspira pilosicoli, Lawsonia intracellularis and Escherichia coli fimbrial types F4 and F18 in pig feces. Vet Microbiol. 2011; 151(3–4): 307–314. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Stege H, Jensen TK, Møller K, et al.: Risk factors for intestinal pathogens in Danish finishing pig herds. Prev Vet Med. 2001; 50(1–2): 153–164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Stege H, Jensen TK, Møller K, et al.: Prevalence of intestinal pathogens in Danish finishing pig herds. Prev Vet Med. 2000; 46(4): 279–292. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Weber N, Nielsen JP, Jakobsen AS, et al.: Occurrence of diarrhoea and intestinal pathogens in non-medicated nursery pigs. Acta Vet Scand. 2015; 57: 64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Zmudzki J, Szczotka A, Podgórska K, et al.: Application of real-time PCR for detection of Lawsonia intracellularis and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in fecal samples from pigs. Pol J Vet Sci. 2012; 15(2): 267–273. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 30 Sep 2019

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Swine Diseases, National Veterinary Research Institute, Puławy, 24-100, Poland

Arkadiusz Dors
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Ewelina Czyżewska-Dors
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Grzegorz Woźniakowski
Roles: Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

Funded by KNOW (Leading National Research Centre) Scientific Consortium “Healthy Animal - Safe Food”, decision of Ministry of Science and Higher Education No. 05-1/KNOW2/2015.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 01 Apr 2021, 8:1702

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20639.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 13 Mar 2020, 8:1702

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20639.2

version 1

Published: 30 Sep 2019, 8:1702

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20639.1

© 2021 Dors A 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 work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Dors A, Czyżewska-Dors E and Woźniakowski G. A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 8:1702 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.20639.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 13 Mar 2020

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 23 Mar 2021

Francesca Piras, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25154.r81218

The paper “A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs” evaluate occurrence of two pathogenic intestinal spirochetes in finishing pigs herd.
The presented manuscript is well written and sound.
I have just ... Continue reading

Out of 18 B. pilosicoli positive samples, this pathogen was detected alone in 5 samples. Change “this” with “the”.
The subclinical colonization of pigs, with B. pilosicoli is not uncommon and has been detected in several farms. The sentence is not clear, delete comma.
The second group was made up of samples (n=70) from pigs with clinical sings. Correct sings with signs.
Besides, B. pilosicoli tests were performed in July and August 2019. The sentence is not clear.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Microbiology, food safety, enteric pathogens

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 01 Apr 2021

arkadiusz dors

01 Apr 2021

Author Response

I would like to thank the Reviewer for all the comments to our article. I included all the amendments and suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
I would like to thank the Reviewer for all the comments to our article. I included all the amendments and suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.
I would like to thank the Reviewer for all the comments to our article. I included all the amendments and suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 01 Apr 2021

arkadiusz dors

01 Apr 2021

Author Response

I would like to thank the Reviewer for all the comments to our article. I included all the amendments and suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
I would like to thank the Reviewer for all the comments to our article. I included all the amendments and suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.
I would like to thank the Reviewer for all the comments to our article. I included all the amendments and suggestions in the new version of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 23 Mar 2020

Roberto M.C. Guedes, Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25154.r61312

I believe now the ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 30 Sep 2019

Views

Reviewer Report 05 Dec 2019

Roberto M.C. Guedes, Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.22699.r57051

General comments:
This study describes the occurrence of pathogenic spirochetes for swine in Poland herds using routine diagnostic cases submitted to their reference laboratory. As a result, sampling was bias for a prevalence study, so the decision of just describe as occurrence was adequate. The data represents important information for Poland swine production, but not so relevant for the rest of the World. Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition of the data that it is already stated in the text. It seems that qPCR for B. pilosicoli was not performed at the arrival of the sample, in contrast to qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis. So, when was the qPCR for B. pilosicoli performed?

Specific comments:
It was very difficult to list the modification required in the text as it does not have the lines numbered.

Abstract:

Results: “…simultaneously with L. intracellularis. B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli were …”

Suggestion of Key-words: pathogenic spirochetes, Lawsonia intracellularis, swine, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea.

Results:

The 4^th and 5^th sentences of the second paragraph are confusing. Rewrite.
The 3^rd paragraph is too long and confusing. Rewrite.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: enteropathogens of pigs

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Mar 2020

arkadiusz dors

13 Mar 2020

Author Response

I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition ... Continue reading I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition of the data that it is already stated in the text.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

It seems that qPCR for B. pilosicoli was not performed at the arrival of the sample, in contrast to qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis. So, when was the qPCR for B. pilosicoli performed?

Adequate explanation was added to Methods section.

Abstract:
    Results: “…simultaneously with L. intracellularis. B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli were …”

Abstract was adjusted to all changes that were made within the article.

Suggestion of Key-words: pathogenic spirochetes, Lawsonia intracellularis, swine, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea.

We found it difficult to change.

Results:
    The 4th and 5th sentences of the second paragraph are confusing. Rewrite.
    The 3rd paragraph is too long and confusing. Rewrite.

These sentences was rephrased according to reviewer suggestions.
I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition of the data that it is already stated in the text.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

It seems that qPCR for B. pilosicoli was not performed at the arrival of the sample, in contrast to qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis. So, when was the qPCR for B. pilosicoli performed?

Adequate explanation was added to Methods section.

Abstract:
    Results: “…simultaneously with L. intracellularis. B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli were …”

Abstract was adjusted to all changes that were made within the article.

Suggestion of Key-words: pathogenic spirochetes, Lawsonia intracellularis, swine, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea.

We found it difficult to change.

Results:
    The 4th and 5th sentences of the second paragraph are confusing. Rewrite.
    The 3rd paragraph is too long and confusing. Rewrite.

These sentences was rephrased according to reviewer suggestions.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Mar 2020

arkadiusz dors

13 Mar 2020

Author Response

I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition ... Continue reading I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition of the data that it is already stated in the text.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

It seems that qPCR for B. pilosicoli was not performed at the arrival of the sample, in contrast to qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis. So, when was the qPCR for B. pilosicoli performed?

Adequate explanation was added to Methods section.

Abstract:
    Results: “…simultaneously with L. intracellularis. B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli were …”

Abstract was adjusted to all changes that were made within the article.

Suggestion of Key-words: pathogenic spirochetes, Lawsonia intracellularis, swine, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea.

We found it difficult to change.

Results:
    The 4th and 5th sentences of the second paragraph are confusing. Rewrite.
    The 3rd paragraph is too long and confusing. Rewrite.

These sentences was rephrased according to reviewer suggestions.
I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition of the data that it is already stated in the text.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

It seems that qPCR for B. pilosicoli was not performed at the arrival of the sample, in contrast to qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis. So, when was the qPCR for B. pilosicoli performed?

Adequate explanation was added to Methods section.

Abstract:
    Results: “…simultaneously with L. intracellularis. B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli were …”

Abstract was adjusted to all changes that were made within the article.

Suggestion of Key-words: pathogenic spirochetes, Lawsonia intracellularis, swine, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea.

We found it difficult to change.

Results:
    The 4th and 5th sentences of the second paragraph are confusing. Rewrite.
    The 3rd paragraph is too long and confusing. Rewrite.

These sentences was rephrased according to reviewer suggestions.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 26 Nov 2019

Matheus costa, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.22699.r55873

I read with great interest this article, that sought to investigate the presence of Bhyo and Bpilo in polish herds. As the authors observed, this is a somewhat challenging goal: both bacterium can survive in the healthy host, thus it's hard to evaluate the meaning of their presence.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric description of each group. You mention the total number of fecal samples, but not how many came from X many herds, and how many are part of each "submission group".

Results - How many samples were tested out of the 18 that were found positive for Bpilo? Please include the actual numbers in all your descriptions.

Figure 1 - Please include actual n to the data shown. Also italicize scientific names.

Lawsonia comparison - Please include actual numbers in all the descriptions (n=?). A statistical test to show that samples positive for LI are more likely to be positive with Bpilo would be interesting here, besides the simple description.

Discussion - Was is thought that Poland was free of Bpilo? The first sentence is odd.

Please acknowledge that this data set is inherently biased (at least partially, except for the ones that are routine surveillance but we don't know how many samples were part of the group...).

Please include a conclusion statement, and clearly lay out your main findings.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Veterinary medicine, swine medicine, molecular diagnostic tests, microbiome, transcriptome.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Mar 2020

arkadiusz dors

13 Mar 2020

Author Response

I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric ... Continue reading I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric description of each group. You mention the total number of fecal samples, but not how many came from X many herds, and how many are part of each "submission group".

Number of fecal samples in "submission group" was provided in results section but according to your suggestion we have number also in methods.

Results - How many samples were tested out of the 18 that were found positive for Bpilo? Please include the actual numbers in all your descriptions.

Changed as suggested by reviewer.

Figure 1 - Please include actual n to the data shown. Also italicize scientific names.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

Lawsonia comparison - Please include actual numbers in all the descriptions (n=?). A statistical test to show that samples positive for LI are more likely to be positive with Bpilo would be interesting here, besides the simple description.

Corrected as suggested by reviewer. Necessary explanation has been added to Methods section and p-values were added in the Results.

Discussion - Was is thought that Poland was free of Bpilo? The first sentence is odd.

Sentence was rephrased

Please acknowledge that this data set is inherently biased (at least partially, except for the ones that are routine surveillance but we don't know how many samples were part of the group...).

In discussion we have mentioned that: “Current results on the prevalence of B. hyodysenteriae could be biased, due to the large number of samples submitted to the NVRI with suspected clinical SD.”

Please include a conclusion statement, and clearly lay out your main findings.

Final conclusions was added at the end of discussion
I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric description of each group. You mention the total number of fecal samples, but not how many came from X many herds, and how many are part of each "submission group".

Number of fecal samples in "submission group" was provided in results section but according to your suggestion we have number also in methods.

Results - How many samples were tested out of the 18 that were found positive for Bpilo? Please include the actual numbers in all your descriptions.

Changed as suggested by reviewer.

Figure 1 - Please include actual n to the data shown. Also italicize scientific names.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

Lawsonia comparison - Please include actual numbers in all the descriptions (n=?). A statistical test to show that samples positive for LI are more likely to be positive with Bpilo would be interesting here, besides the simple description.

Corrected as suggested by reviewer. Necessary explanation has been added to Methods section and p-values were added in the Results.

Discussion - Was is thought that Poland was free of Bpilo? The first sentence is odd.

Sentence was rephrased

Please acknowledge that this data set is inherently biased (at least partially, except for the ones that are routine surveillance but we don't know how many samples were part of the group...).

In discussion we have mentioned that: “Current results on the prevalence of B. hyodysenteriae could be biased, due to the large number of samples submitted to the NVRI with suspected clinical SD.”

Please include a conclusion statement, and clearly lay out your main findings.

Final conclusions was added at the end of discussion
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Mar 2020

arkadiusz dors

13 Mar 2020

Author Response

I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric ... Continue reading I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric description of each group. You mention the total number of fecal samples, but not how many came from X many herds, and how many are part of each "submission group".

Number of fecal samples in "submission group" was provided in results section but according to your suggestion we have number also in methods.

Results - How many samples were tested out of the 18 that were found positive for Bpilo? Please include the actual numbers in all your descriptions.

Changed as suggested by reviewer.

Figure 1 - Please include actual n to the data shown. Also italicize scientific names.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

Lawsonia comparison - Please include actual numbers in all the descriptions (n=?). A statistical test to show that samples positive for LI are more likely to be positive with Bpilo would be interesting here, besides the simple description.

Corrected as suggested by reviewer. Necessary explanation has been added to Methods section and p-values were added in the Results.

Discussion - Was is thought that Poland was free of Bpilo? The first sentence is odd.

Sentence was rephrased

Please acknowledge that this data set is inherently biased (at least partially, except for the ones that are routine surveillance but we don't know how many samples were part of the group...).

In discussion we have mentioned that: “Current results on the prevalence of B. hyodysenteriae could be biased, due to the large number of samples submitted to the NVRI with suspected clinical SD.”

Please include a conclusion statement, and clearly lay out your main findings.

Final conclusions was added at the end of discussion
I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric description of each group. You mention the total number of fecal samples, but not how many came from X many herds, and how many are part of each "submission group".

Number of fecal samples in "submission group" was provided in results section but according to your suggestion we have number also in methods.

Results - How many samples were tested out of the 18 that were found positive for Bpilo? Please include the actual numbers in all your descriptions.

Changed as suggested by reviewer.

Figure 1 - Please include actual n to the data shown. Also italicize scientific names.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

Lawsonia comparison - Please include actual numbers in all the descriptions (n=?). A statistical test to show that samples positive for LI are more likely to be positive with Bpilo would be interesting here, besides the simple description.

Corrected as suggested by reviewer. Necessary explanation has been added to Methods section and p-values were added in the Results.

Discussion - Was is thought that Poland was free of Bpilo? The first sentence is odd.

Sentence was rephrased

Please acknowledge that this data set is inherently biased (at least partially, except for the ones that are routine surveillance but we don't know how many samples were part of the group...).

In discussion we have mentioned that: “Current results on the prevalence of B. hyodysenteriae could be biased, due to the large number of samples submitted to the NVRI with suspected clinical SD.”

Please include a conclusion statement, and clearly lay out your main findings.

Final conclusions was added at the end of discussion
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 30 Sep 2019

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 3 (revision) 01 Apr 21
Version 2 (revision) 13 Mar 20		read	read
Version 1 30 Sep 19	read	read

Matheus costa, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Roberto M.C. Guedes, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Francesca Piras, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

23 Mar 2021 | for Version 2

Francesca Piras, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy

8 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Out of 18 B. pilosicoli positive samples, this pathogen was detected alone in 5 samples. Change “this” with “the”.
The subclinical colonization of pigs, with B. pilosicoli is not uncommon and has been detected in several farms. The sentence is not clear, delete comma.
The second group was made up of samples (n=70) from pigs with clinical sings. Correct sings with signs.
Besides, B. pilosicoli tests were performed in July and August 2019. The sentence is not clear.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Microbiology, food safety, enteric pathogens

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

23 Mar 2020 | for Version 2

Roberto M.C. Guedes, Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I believe now the manuscript is adequate for indexing!

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

15 Views

05 Dec 2019 | for Version 1

Roberto M.C. Guedes, Department of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

15 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Results: “…simultaneously with L. intracellularis. B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli were …”

Suggestion of Key-words: pathogenic spirochetes, Lawsonia intracellularis, swine, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea.

Results:

The 4^th and 5^th sentences of the second paragraph are confusing. Rewrite.
The 3^rd paragraph is too long and confusing. Rewrite.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

enteropathogens of pigs

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Mar 2020

arkadiusz dors

I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Figure 1 is illustrative but it is a repetition of the data that it is already stated in the text.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

It seems that qPCR for B. pilosicoli was not performed at the arrival of the sample, in contrast to qPCR for B. hyodysenteriae and L. intracellularis. So, when was the qPCR for B. pilosicoli performed?

Adequate explanation was added to Methods section.

Abstract:
    Results: “…simultaneously with L. intracellularis. B. hyodysenteriae and B. pilosicoli were …”

Abstract was adjusted to all changes that were made within the article.

Suggestion of Key-words: pathogenic spirochetes, Lawsonia intracellularis, swine, intestinal pathogens, enterocolitis, diarrhea.

We found it difficult to change.

Results:
    The 4th and 5th sentences of the second paragraph are confusing. Rewrite.
    The 3rd paragraph is too long and confusing. Rewrite.

These sentences was rephrased according to reviewer suggestions.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

20 Views

26 Nov 2019 | for Version 1

Matheus costa, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

20 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Veterinary medicine, swine medicine, molecular diagnostic tests, microbiome, transcriptome.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Mar 2020

arkadiusz dors

I would like to begin by thanking the reviewer for the valuable comments. Below we have included our responses to specific comments.

Methods - Fecal samples - Please include a numeric description of each group. You mention the total number of fecal samples, but not how many came from X many herds, and how many are part of each "submission group".

Number of fecal samples in "submission group" was provided in results section but according to your suggestion we have number also in methods.

Results - How many samples were tested out of the 18 that were found positive for Bpilo? Please include the actual numbers in all your descriptions.

Changed as suggested by reviewer.

Figure 1 - Please include actual n to the data shown. Also italicize scientific names.

Figure 1 was removed because of repetition of results described in the text.

Lawsonia comparison - Please include actual numbers in all the descriptions (n=?). A statistical test to show that samples positive for LI are more likely to be positive with Bpilo would be interesting here, besides the simple description.

Corrected as suggested by reviewer. Necessary explanation has been added to Methods section and p-values were added in the Results.

Discussion - Was is thought that Poland was free of Bpilo? The first sentence is odd.

Sentence was rephrased

Please acknowledge that this data set is inherently biased (at least partially, except for the ones that are routine surveillance but we don't know how many samples were part of the group...).

In discussion we have mentioned that: “Current results on the prevalence of B. hyodysenteriae could be biased, due to the large number of samples submitted to the NVRI with suspected clinical SD.”

Please include a conclusion statement, and clearly lay out your main findings.

Final conclusions was added at the end of discussion

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Akase S, Uchitani Y, Sohmura Y, et al.: Application of real time PCR for diagnosis of Swine Dysentery. J Vet Med Sci. 2009; 71(3): 359–362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] Biksi I, Lőrincz M, Molnár B, et al.: Prevalence of selected enteropathogenic bacteria in Hungarian finishing pigs. Acta Vet Hung. 2007; 55(2): 219–227. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] Dors A, Czyżewska-Dors E, Woźniakowski G: A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs. figshare. Dataset. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9878612.v1

[4] Dors A, Pomorska-Mól M, Czyżewska E, et al.: Prevalence and risk factors for Lawsonia intracellularis, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Salmonella spp. in finishing pigs in Polish farrow-to-finish swine herds. Pol J Vet Sci. 2015; 18(4): 825–831. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] Duhamel GE: Colonic spirochetosis caused by Serpulina pilosicoli. Vet Med Large Anim Prac. 1998; 19: 14–22.

[6] Fellström C, Pettersson B, Johansson KE, et al.: Prevalence of Serpulina species in relation to diarrhea and feed medication in pig-rearing herds in Sweden. Am J Vet Res. 1996; 57(6): 807–811. PubMed Abstract

[7] Hampson DJ: The Spirochete Brachyspira pilosicoli, Enteric Pathogen of Animals and Humans. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2018; 31(1): pii: e00087-17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] Hampson DJ, La T, Phillips ND: Emergence of Brachyspira species and strains: reinforcing the need for surveillance. Porcine Health Manag. 2015; 1: 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] Hopwood DE, Pethick DW, Hampson DJ: Increasing the viscosity of the intestinal contents stimulates proliferation of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Brachyspira pilosicoli in weaner pigs. Br J Nutr. 2002; 88(5): 523–532. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] Jacobson M, Gerth Löfstedt M, Holmgren N, et al.: The prevalences of Brachyspira spp. and Lawsonia intracellularis in Swedish piglet producing herds and wild boar population. J Vet Med B Infect Dis Vet Public Health. 2005; 52(9): 386–391. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] Jacobson M, Hård af Segerstad C, Gunnarsson A, et al.: Diarrhoea in the growing pig - a comparison of clinical, morphological and microbial findings between animals from good and poor performance herds. Res Vet Sci. 2003; 74(2): 163–169. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] Lindecrona RH, Jensen TK, Andersen PH, et al.: Application of a 5' nuclease assay for detection of Lawsonia intracellularis in fecal samples from pigs. J Clin Microbiol. 2002; 40(3): 984–987. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] Merialdi G, Bonilauri P, Granelli F, et al.: Bacterial pathogens in field cases of clinical colitis in growing and finishing pigs in Italy. Vet Rec. 2003; 153(17): 529–530. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] Pławińska J, Jakubowski T, Rzewuska M, et al.: Occurrence of Lawsonia Intracellularis and Brachyspira spp. infection in swine suffering from diarrhoea. Pol J Vet Sci. 2004; 7(3): 203–206. PubMed Abstract

[15] Reiner G, Hillen S, von Berg S, et al.: Analysis of bacterial load and prevalence of mixed infections with Lawsonia intracellularis, Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and/or Brachyspira pilosicoli in German pigs with diarrhoea. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 2011; 124(5–6): 236–241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] Ståhl M, Kokotovic B, Hjulsager CK, et al.: The use of quantitative PCR for identification and quantification of Brachyspira pilosicoli, Lawsonia intracellularis and Escherichia coli fimbrial types F4 and F18 in pig feces. Vet Microbiol. 2011; 151(3–4): 307–314. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] Stege H, Jensen TK, Møller K, et al.: Risk factors for intestinal pathogens in Danish finishing pig herds. Prev Vet Med. 2001; 50(1–2): 153–164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] Stege H, Jensen TK, Møller K, et al.: Prevalence of intestinal pathogens in Danish finishing pig herds. Prev Vet Med. 2000; 46(4): 279–292. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] Weber N, Nielsen JP, Jakobsen AS, et al.: Occurrence of diarrhoea and intestinal pathogens in non-medicated nursery pigs. Acta Vet Scand. 2015; 57: 64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] Zmudzki J, Szczotka A, Podgórska K, et al.: Application of real-time PCR for detection of Lawsonia intracellularis and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in fecal samples from pigs. Pol J Vet Sci. 2012; 15(2): 267–273. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

A survey on the occurrence of Brachyspira pilosicoli and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae in growing-finishing pigs

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Methods

Fecal samples

DNA extraction and PCR

Statistical analysis

Results

Table 1. The differences in the presence of Brachyspira hyodysenteriae and Brachyspira pilosicoli in fecal samples obtained from healthy pigs and pigs with diarrhea.

Discussion and conclusions

Data availability

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated