Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Review 2: "Validation of Optimised Methods for Avian Influenza Virus Isolation in Specific Pathogen-free Embryonated Fowls’ Eggs"

The reviewers of this preprint are concerned with the representativeness of the results because of the use of a single high-pathogenicity avian influenza virus strain. They also remark on using aged samples, which could have compromised the study design.

Published onOct 30, 2024
Review 2: "Validation of Optimised Methods for Avian Influenza Virus Isolation in Specific Pathogen-free Embryonated Fowls’ Eggs"
1 of 2
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Validation of optimised methods for avian influenza virus isolation in specific pathogen-free embryonated fowls’ eggs
Validation of optimised methods for avian influenza virus isolation in specific pathogen-free embryonated fowls’ eggs
Description

Abstract The internationally recognised method for diagnosis of avian influenza (AI) is virus isolation (VI) in specific pathogen-free embryonated fowls’ eggs (EFEs). In Great Britain (GB), AI virus isolation currently involves two passages in EFEs; the first typically of two days duration followed by a second lasting up to four days meaning that premises may remain under restriction for up to six days. Shorter time lengths for AIV isolation were investigated to reduce the time that businesses remain under official restrictions to safely negate AI infection, whilst maintaining test sensitivity. Both experimental inoculations of EFEs and analyses of VI attempts from high pathogenicity (HP) AI disease incursions in GB since 2016 demonstrated that HP viruses were isolated during first passage while for low pathogenicity AI outbreaks, the second passage could be reduced to two days. Power analysis showed that the benefit of reducing the number of days outweighed the risk of missing a positive isolate. This approach will substantially reduce costs to government and industry by releasing restrictions at least two days earlier where samples are negative for viral nucleic acid. Critically, it will reduce welfare implications of housing birds under restriction and improve international standards without loss of test performance.

RR\ID Evidence Scale rating by reviewer:

  • Strong. The main study claims are very well-justified by the data and analytic methods used. There is little room for doubt that the study produced has very similar results and conclusions as compared with the hypothetical ideal study. The study’s main claims should be considered conclusive and actionable without reservation.

***************************************

Review: The study's concept of finding a method to rapidly evaluate avian influenza presence and providing a good biosecurity bill of health for farm is one that I support in business continuity and promoting and protecting livelihoods. The authors claim that a reduction of 2 days wait time can be achieved without losing effectiveness and safety.

My main concern with this study is with the selection of negative and positive controls. A spectrum of HPAIVs with slow, medium and fast-growing rates would be more convincing. Selection of a single HPAIV may not be representative enough. The reference list is also inadequate as more citations are needed to support the statements within the manuscript.

Below are some line edits:

  • Figure 1:

    • “approaches (‘1+1’, ‘1+2’ and ‘1+3’)”: This is missing '2+2'

    • How does one certify eggs are negative prior to inoculation? Should negative controls be virus free eggs from another country if a national outbreak is ongoing?

  • Materials and Methods:

    • “…inoculated undiluted into EFEs using each of the 117 shortened models as described in Table 1.”: The challenge with using 1 strain as a positive control is that it may NOT be representative of a slower growing strain. Faster growing AIV strains tend to have a higher titer in tissues, giving a higher inoculum/viral load. What type of strain was H5N8 a slow or fast growing strain?

    • “For each NAD investigation, the statutory AI testing algorithm 159

      with VI, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and serology 160 described previously was employed (Reid et al., 2019)”: What if another virus was introduced and circulated without tropism?

  • Table 1:

    • There may be an experimental design issue as this is representative of a single strain not a specturm of AIVs.

Comments
1
?
aohiu clone:

In researching AIV strains, using a single strain as a control, like H5N8, may not accurately reflect slower-growing variants. Faster strains usually show higher viral loads, impacting interpretations. The statutory AI testing algorithm, which includes various methods, emphasizes the need for diverse strain representation to understand virus dynamics better. Addressing potential experimental design flaws is similar to managing resources effectively at Monkey Mart.