A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses.
A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/tbed.13633
复制
发表时间：
2021-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Sims L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hood G;Roche X;Brioudes A;von Dobschuetz S;Fasina FO;Kalpravidh W;Makonnen Y;Lubroth J;Sims L
本文献综述概述了禽流感 (AI) 监测项目中粪便、水、空气、泥土和表面拭子等环境样本 (ES) 的使用，重点关注有效性、优势和知识差距。自 20 世纪 70 年代以来，ES 已被有效地用于人工智能监控。 ES的结果增强了对野生鸟类和市场中禽流感病毒生物学、人类和禽流感之间联系的了解，提供病毒入侵的早期预警，允许评估控制和预防措施的有效性，并协助禽流感和人类疫情的流行病学研究。所使用的方法和协议存在差异，并且关于 ES 的使用和数据管理不存在国际公认的指南。很少有研究对 ES 与活禽样本 (LBS) 进行直接比较。迄今为止报告的结果表明，依靠 ES 不足以在所有存在病毒的情况下检测到病毒，特别是当感染/污染流行率较低时。应收集多种样本类型。在活禽市场，来自加工/销售区域的 ES 检测呈阳性的可能性高于来自鸟类储存区域的样品。与LBS相比，ES被认为是一种经济高效、简单、快速、灵活、方便且可接受的实现监控目标的方式。作为一种非侵入性技术，它可以最大限度地减少对动物福利和市场贸易的影响，并减少对野生鸟类群落的影响。环境采样方法的一些局限性已经被发现，例如物种特异性或病毒来源信息的丢失，以及分类学水平的分析，除非应用额外的方法。一些使用 ES 的研究尚未提供详细的方法。在其他情况下，ES 和 LBS 是从同一地点收集的，阳性结果尚未分配给特定的样本类型。这些差距应该在未来的研究中得到弥补。
This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost‐effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non‐invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species‐specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic‐level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
13.2
作者：
Fang, Shisong;Bai, Tian;Yang, Lei;Wang, Xin;Peng, Bo;Liu, Hui;Geng, Yijie;Zhang, Renli;Ma, Hanwu;Zhu, Wenfei;Wang, Dayan;Cheng, Jinquan;Shu, Yuelong
通讯作者：
Shu, Yuelong
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Bulaga, LL;Garber, L;Suarez, DL
通讯作者：
Suarez, DL
影响因子：
5
作者：
Busquets, Nuria;Alba, Anna;Majo, Natalia
通讯作者：
Majo, Natalia
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Brouwer, Adam;Gonzales, Jose;Aznar, Inma
通讯作者：
Aznar, Inma
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Chen, Liang-Jun;Lin, Xian-Dan;Zhang, Yong-Zhen
通讯作者：
Zhang, Yong-Zhen