Molecular characterisation of Porcine rubulavirus (PorPV) isolates from different outbreaks in Mexico.

Since the report of the initial outbreak of Porcine rubulavirus (PorPV) infection in pigs, only one full-length genome from 1984 (PorPV-LPMV/1984) has been characterised. To investigate the overall genetic variation, full-length gene nucleotide sequences of current PorPV isolates were obtained from different clinical cases of infected swine. Genome organisation and sequence analysis of the encoded proteins (NP, P, F, M, HN and L) revealed high sequence conservation of the NP protein and the expression of the P and V proteins in all PorPV isolates. The V protein of one isolate displayed a mutation that has been implicated to antagonise the antiviral immune responses of the host. The M protein indicated a variation in a short region that could affect the electrostatic charge and the interaction with the membrane. One PorPV isolate recovered from the lungs showed a mutation at the cleavage site (HRKKR) of the F protein that could represent an important factor to determine the tissue tropism and pathogenicity of this virus. The HN protein showed high sequence identity through the years (up to 2013). Additionally, a number of sequence motifs of very high amino acid conservation among the PorPV isolates important for polymerase activity of the L protein have been identified. In summary, genetic comparisons and phylogenetic analyses indicated that three different genetic variants of PorPV are currently spreading within the swine population, and a new generation of circulating virus with different characteristics has begun to emerge.

Serological survey of veterinarians to assess the zoonotic potential of three emerging swine diseases in Mexico.

We conducted an immunological assay of blood samples taken from 85 swine-specialist veterinarians attending the Congress of the Mexican Association of Swine Specialist Veterinarians in Mexico in 2011. Serum samples were assayed for Porcine rubulavirus (PorPV), Encephalomyocarditis virus (EMCV) and Leptospira spp. antibodies. Using a hemagglutination inhibition test, we registered 2.3% and 27% seropositivity for PorPV and EMCV, respectively. Using viral neutralization tests, we registered 5.8% and 47% seropositivity for PorPV and EMCV, respectively. For Leptospira spp., we registered a seropositivity of 38.8%. The variables (sex, age, years of exposure, number of visited farms, biosecurity level and region) showed no significant effect (P > 0.05) on the seropositivity for EMCV, PorPV and Leptospira spp. except for number of visited farms on HI seropositivity for EMCV (P < 0.05; odds ratio: 1.38). The data obtained provide information on the epidemiology of emerging diseases with zoonotic potential in occupational risk groups.

Identification of antigenic variants of the porcine rubulavirus in sera of field swine and their seroprevalence.

We sampled sera from 1013 non-vaccinated swine from four states in Mexico, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán and the Estado de Mexico, to analyse anti-porcine rubulavirus antibody titres against three different porcine rubulavirus isolates (PAC-4/1993, PAC-6/2001, and PAC-9/2003) using a hemagglutination inhibition assay. The results revealed that there were antigenic differences among the isolates assessed. In particular, the estimated correlation between the PAC-4/1993 and PAC-6/2001 (0.50) isolates and between the PAC-4/1993 and PAC-9/2003 isolates (0.56) displayed a moderate positive correlation. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation between the PAC-6/2001 and PAC-9/2003 isolates (0.73). We also found that in the state of Guanajuato, PAC-4/1993 was the isolate that was most frequently identified; in Jalisco, the isolate was PAC-6/2001; and in Michoacán, the isolate was PAC-9/2003. By contrast, in the Estado de Mexico, all three isolates appeared to circulate with a low seroprevalence. In general, the analysed sera from the four states displayed a porcine rubulavirus serological prevalence ranging from 9% to 23.7%. These data indicate that there is not complete antibody cross-antigenicity among the three isolates, and the antigenic variations in the antibody response found in this study implies that the use of a monovalent vaccine would not generate complete protection against the different antigenic subtypes.