Why the study?
PRRS causes significant economic losses in the swine industry, and the high mutation and evolution rates of PRRSV motivated examining the influence of mixed wild-type and modified-live vaccine virus concentrations on ORF5 Sanger sequencing outcomes.
Does ORF5 Sanger sequencing preferentially detect the dominant virus in samples containing both wild-type and modified-live vaccine PRRSV strains?
Does ORF5 Sanger sequencing preferentially detect the dominant virus in samples containing both wild-type and modified-live vaccine PRRSV strains?
Sanger sequencing of PRRSV ORF5 may preferentially detect the dominant virus strain in mixed samples, potentially masking wild-type infections in vaccinated herds.
Caution interpreting ORF5 sequences in vaccinated herds; leaves open preferential MLV detection bias in mixed samples.
Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) causes significant economic losses and is a major challenge to the swine industry. The PRRS virus (PRRSV) has high rates of mutation and evolution. We examined the influence on ORF5 Sanger sequencing outcomes of various concentrations of a wild-type (WT) PRRSV (lineage 1A RFLP 1-7-4) and a modified-live vaccine (MLV) virus (lineage 5 RFLP 2-5-2) in the same sample. Vaccine-like sequences were detected more frequently than the WT virus when the MLV virus was present at equal or higher concentrations than the WT virus. This result suggests that ORF5 Sanger sequencing may preferentially detect the dominant virus in samples containing more than one virus, potentially masking WT viral infections in vaccinated herds. Although our findings highlight a limitation in identifying co-circulation of strains, Sanger sequencing is still widely used as an accessible tool to characterize PRRSVs. Advanced sequencing techniques, such as NGS or CLAMP-based approaches, would complement Sanger sequencing results and allow improved detection of co-circulating variants by minimizing consensus sequence bias and selectively blocking vaccine-like sequences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alvarez-Norambuena et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: