|
1
|
Ede T, Parsons TD. Cognitive tasks as measures of pig welfare: a systematic review. Front Vet Sci 2023; 10:1251070. [PMID: 38033647 PMCID: PMC10683646 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1251070] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Accepted: 10/24/2023] [Indexed: 12/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Cognitive approaches are increasingly used to assess animal welfare, but no systematic review has been conducted on pigs despite their cognitive capacities. Our aims were two-fold: first, to assess the popularity and heterogeneity of this approach by quantifying the different cognitive tasks used and welfare interventions studied. The second was to assess how often results from cognitive tasks supported treatment effects. The search yielded 36 studies that met our criteria. Eleven different cognitive tasks were applied (three most common: judgment bias, learned approach/aversion, and holeboard). Welfare interventions investigated were also diverse: the impact of 19 other different events/conditions/states were reported (most common: housing enrichment). We defined "supportive" as the observation of a significant difference between treatment groups consistent with an author's expectation or hypothesis. Supportive findings were reported in 44% of papers. Interventions yielded no significant difference in 33% of studies. In another 21% of reports, outcomes were mixed and a single study refuted the author's predictions. When considering specific cognitive tasks, authors' predictions of welfare differences were supported most often when using learned approach/aversion (55% of these studies). Similar supportive results were observed less commonly (40% each) when using judgment bias and holeboard tests. Analysis of additional concomitant measures of welfare (health, physiology or behavior) revealed that behavioral measures were most frequently supportive of author's expectations (41%) as well as often matching the actual outcomes of these cognitive tasks (47%). This systematic review highlights the growing popularity of cognitive tasks as measures of pig welfare. However, overall rates of supportive results, i.e., changes in performance on cognitive tasks due to welfare interventions, have been limited so far, even for the most employed task, judgment bias. The numerous different combinations of experimental paradigms and welfare interventions reported in the literature creates challenges for a critical meta-analysis of the field especially in evaluating the efficiency of specific cognitive tasks in assessing animal welfare. This work also highlights important knowledge gaps in the use of cognitive tasks that will require both further validation as well as novel innovation to ensure that their potential is fully realized in the measurement of pig welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Ede
- Swine Teaching and Research Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, Kennett Square, PA, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Hernandez-Franco JF, Yadagiri G, Patil V, Bugybayeva D, Dolatyabi S, Dumkliang E, Singh M, Suresh R, Akter F, Schrock J, Renukaradhya GJ, HogenEsch H. Intradermal Vaccination against Influenza with a STING-Targeted Nanoparticle Combination Adjuvant Induces Superior Cross-Protective Humoral Immunity in Swine Compared with Intranasal and Intramuscular Immunization. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11:1699. [PMID: 38006031 PMCID: PMC10675188 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11111699] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Revised: 11/03/2023] [Accepted: 11/04/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
The development of cross-protective vaccines against the zoonotic swine influenza A virus (swIAV), a potential pandemic-causing agent, continues to be an urgent global health concern. Commercially available vaccines provide suboptimal cross-protection against circulating subtypes of swIAV, which can lead to worldwide economic losses and poor zoonosis deterrence. The limited efficacy of current swIAV vaccines demands innovative strategies for the development of next-generation vaccines. Considering that intramuscular injection is the standard route of vaccine administration in both human and veterinary medicine, the exploration of alternative strategies, such as intradermal vaccination, presents a promising avenue for vaccinology. This investigation demonstrates the first evaluation of a direct comparison between a commercially available multivalent swIAV vaccine and monovalent whole inactivated H1N2 swine influenza vaccine, delivered by intradermal, intranasal, and intramuscular routes. The monovalent vaccines were adjuvanted with NanoST, a cationic phytoglycogen-based nanoparticle that is combined with the STING agonist ADU-S100. Upon heterologous challenge, intradermal vaccination generated a stronger cross-reactive nasal and serum antibody response in pigs compared with intranasal and intramuscular vaccination. Antibodies induced by intradermal immunization also had higher avidity compared with the other routes of vaccination. Bone marrow from intradermally and intramuscularly immunized pigs had both IgG and IgA virus-specific antibody-secreting cells. These studies reveal that NanoST is a promising adjuvant system for the intradermal administration of STING-targeted influenza vaccines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan F. Hernandez-Franco
- Department of Comparative Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA;
| | - Ganesh Yadagiri
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Veerupaxagouda Patil
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Dina Bugybayeva
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Sara Dolatyabi
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Ekachai Dumkliang
- Drug Delivery System Excellence Center (DDSEC), Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand;
| | - Mithilesh Singh
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Raksha Suresh
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Fatema Akter
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Jennifer Schrock
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Gourapura J. Renukaradhya
- Center for Food Animal Health, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691, USA; (G.Y.); (V.P.); (D.B.); (S.D.); (M.S.); (R.S.); (F.A.); (J.S.)
| | - Harm HogenEsch
- Department of Comparative Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA;
- Purdue Institute of Inflammation, Immunology, and Infectious Disease, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Có-Rives I, Chen AY, Moore AC. Skin-Based Vaccination: A Systematic Mapping Review of the Types of Vaccines and Methods Used and Immunity and Protection Elicited in Pigs. Vaccines (Basel) 2023; 11. [PMID: 36851328 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines11020450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Revised: 02/10/2023] [Accepted: 02/13/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2023] Open
Abstract
The advantages of skin-based vaccination include induction of strong immunity, dose-sparing, and ease of administration. Several technologies for skin-based immunisation in humans are being developed to maximise these key advantages. This route is more conventionally used in veterinary medicine. Skin-based vaccination of pigs is of high relevance due to their anatomical, physiological, and immunological similarities to humans, as well as being a source of zoonotic diseases and their livestock value. We conducted a systematic mapping review, focusing on vaccine-induced immunity and safety after the skin immunisation of pigs. Veterinary vaccines, specifically anti-viral vaccines, predominated in the literature. The safe and potent skin administration to pigs of adjuvanted vaccines, particularly emulsions, are frequently documented. Multiple methods of skin immunisation exist; however, there is a lack of consistent terminology and accurate descriptions of the route and device. Antibody responses, compared to other immune correlates, are most frequently reported. There is a lack of research on the underlying mechanisms of action and breadth of responses. Nevertheless, encouraging results, both in safety and immunogenicity, were observed after skin vaccination that were often comparable to or superior the intramuscular route. Further research in this area will underlie the development of enhanced skin vaccine strategies for pigs, other animals and humans.
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Puig A, Bernal I, Sabaté D, Ballarà I, Montané J, Nodar L, Angelats D, Jordà R. Comparison of effects of a single dose of MHYOSPHERE® PCV ID with three commercial porcine vaccine associations against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (Mhyo) and porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) on piglet growth during the nursery period under field conditions. Vet Res Commun 2022. [PMID: 35829861 DOI: 10.1007/s11259-022-09971-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2022] [Accepted: 07/01/2022] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
Pigs routinely undergo stressful vaccination procedures, which are often unavoidable given the unavailability of safer alternatives, challenging animal welfare. The available vaccines for Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (Mhyo) or Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) are mostly administered intramuscularly in association to prevent Porcine respiratory disease complex (PRDC). MHYOSPHERE® PCV ID is the first vaccine protecting from both agents by intradermal route. This randomized, blind-field trial aimed to compare the effects of MHYOSPHERE® PCV ID with those of three different intramuscular associations of commercially available vaccines. A total of 7072 21-day-old piglets from 12 consecutive batches in one farm were randomly vaccinated with MHYOSPHERE® PCV ID (G1) or Ingelvac CircoFLEX® + Hyogen® (G2), Porcilis® PCV + M + PAC® (G3), and Porcilis® PCV + Hyogen® (G4). Growth performance during the nursery period and adverse reactions (ARs) after vaccine administration were monitored. Average Daily Weight Gain (ADWG) during the first 7 days post-weaning in G1 was 10.92, 3.03, and 20.08 g/day higher than in G2, G3, and G4, respectively, and 0.65, 4.06, and 9.58 g/day higher than in G2, G3, and G4 during the entire nursery period, respectively. G1 ADWG was significantly higher than G4 during both periods and significantly higher than G2 during the first 7 days post-weaning. Incidence of systemic ARs in G2 and G4 was 0.03% and 0.32%, respectively; none were recorded in G1 and G3. Replacing the usual intramuscular vaccination with MHYOSPHERE® PCV ID results in higher growth performance during the first weeks after weaning with no systemic ARs.
Collapse
|