key: cord-0937448-gbe0fq2y
authors: Noordergraaf, Jeske; Schucker, Adrienne; Martin, Mike; Schuurman, Henk‐jan; Ordway, Brianne; Cooley, Kevin; Sheffler, Marie; Theis, Kara; Armstrong, Chasa; Klein, Laura; Hansen, Doug; Olson, Megan; Schlechter, Lisa; Spizzo, Tom
title: Pathogen elimination and prevention within a regulated, Designated Pathogen Free, closed pig herd for long‐term breeding and production of xenotransplantation materials
date: 2018-08-18
journal: Xenotransplantation
DOI: 10.1111/xen.12428
sha: c9d779b07799a189fb48a72daab15618e021fa6b
doc_id: 937448
cord_uid: gbe0fq2y

BACKGROUND: We established a Source Animal (barrier) Facility (SAF) for generating designated pathogen‐free (DPF) pigs to serve as donors of viable organs, tissues, or cells for xenotransplantation into clinical patients. This facility was populated with caesarian derived, colostrum deprived (CDCD) piglets, from sows of conventional‐specific (or specified) pathogen‐free (SPF) health status in six cohorts over a 10‐month period. In all cases, CDCD piglets fulfilled DPF status including negativity for porcine circovirus (PCV), a particularly environmentally robust and difficult to inactivate virus which at the time of SAF population was epidemic in the US commercial swine production industry. Two outbreaks of PCV infection were subsequently detected during sentinel testing. The first occurred several weeks after PCV‐negative animals were moved under quarantine from the nursery into an animal holding room. The apparent origin of PCV was newly installed stainless steel penning, which was not sufficiently degreased thereby protecting viral particles from disinfection. The second outbreak was apparently transmitted via employee activities in the Caesarian‐section suite adjacent to the barrier facility. In both cases, PCV was contained in the animal holding room where it was diagnosed making a complete facility depopulation‐repopulation unnecessary. METHOD: Infectious PCV was eliminated during both outbreaks by the following: euthanizing infected animals, disposing of all removable items from the affected animal holding room, extensive cleaning with detergents and degreasing agents, sterilization of equipment and rooms with chlorine dioxide, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, and potassium peroxymonosulfate, and for the second outbreak also glutaraldehyde/quaternary ammonium. Impact on other barrier animals throughout the process was monitored by frequent PCV diagnostic testing. RESULT: After close monitoring for 6 months indicating PCV absence from all rooms and animals, herd animals were removed from quarantine status. CONCLUSION: Ten years after PCV clearance following the second outbreak, due to strict adherence to biosecurity protocols and based on ongoing sentinel diagnostic monitoring (currently monthly), the herd remains DPF including PCV negative.

Xenotransplantation is defined as "Any procedure that involves the direct transplantation, implantation, or infusion into a human recipient of live cells, tissues, or organs from a non-human animal source; or indirect exposure, where human body fluids, cells, tissues, or organs that have had ex vivo contact with live non-human animal cells, tissues, or organs are administered". 1 Interest in xenotransplantation into humans arose when it became increasingly clear that the demand for transplants far exceeds supply. There is general consensus that the porcine species is the species of choice, based on a number of factors including that in many organ systems, the physiology of pigs and humans is remarkably similar. Pigs can be bred and maintained in large numbers within enclosed, biosecure facilities, with large litter sizes being in order of ten piglets or more, time to sexual maturity being short (about 6-8 months), and gestation time being less than 4 months. Genetic engineering techniques have been developed and are being used to modify pigs via transgenesis, gene modification, and gene knock-out (KO) technologies 2,3 to reduce immunogenicity and potentially improve safety. In our society, it appears to be ethically acceptable to use pigs as a source of cells, tissues, and organs for medical therapies. [4] [5] [6] As a result of these factors, a porcine-derived replacement pancreatic islet cell xenotransplantation product has now been used in patients with diabetes under national regulatory oversight 7-9 demonstrating both safety and efficacy. 10 There are stringent guidelines issued by regulatory agencies including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the generation and production of pigs for Xenotransplantation. 11 Originally, the term specific (or specified) pathogen free (SPF) as it relates to swine production was not specifically created to help researchers but for pork producers to economically raise healthier animals under the premise that if the disease load can be lightened, better health and growth performance can be achieved. 12 However, higher level and more extensive pathogen exclusion standards have been proposed for designated pathogen free (DPF) herds, 11 with the notable exception of Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus (PERV), which due to its ubiquitous presence in the swine genome is risk managed via recipient monitoring, 11, 13, 14 subtype, and transmission potential characterization, 14 and recently potentially via genomewide inactivation. 3 Animals fulfilling DPF status need to be free of infectious pathogens, not only those that affect the health of swine populations, but also those known and unknown agents that have the potential to infect humans and cause infectious disease, that is, having xenozoonotic potential. 11 Examples of the latter category of potential pathogenic agents are porcine lymphotropic γ-herpes virus, hepatitis E, and porcine cytomegalovirus. 13, 15 While no globally standardized DPF excluded agent list exists, there are a number of reports in the literature presenting lists of pathogens that should be eliminated from a DPF herd. [16] [17] [18] To enable this pathogen exclusion, DPF-free swineherds should be genetically closed and reared within biosecure barrier facilities, so-called Source Animal Facilities (SAFs), 11, 18 located distant from any other swine production or transport routes, and isolated from potential pathogen sources via filtered air, filtered and disinfected water, sterilized feed, shower-in and shower-out access for staff, and hygienic measures including thorough screening of employees for potentially transmissible pathogens prior to hiring (Table 1) . To reduce the risk of prion-based diseases, feed and feed components should be traceable and certified free of banned animal proteins or other cattle-derived materials for multiple generations prior to donation. 11 The operations in such a SAF should be according to current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) conditions. 11 It is also proposed that SAF animal husbandry conditions should follow those for research animals per the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 19 with research facility registration and accreditation by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, in the USA), the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Conclusion: Ten years after PCV clearance following the second outbreak, due to strict adherence to biosecurity protocols and based on ongoing sentinel diagnostic monitoring (currently monthly), the herd remains DPF including PCV negative. One of many agents on established DPF exclusion lists is porcine circovirus (PCV). This is a small, nonenveloped, single-stranded DNA virus, first identified in 1974 as a contaminant of the porcine PK-15 kidney cell line, and it is the smallest known freely replicating virus in vertebrates. 20 There are two major strains, PCV1 and PCV2 21 along with a newly recognized third strain PCV3 whose significance is still being discovered. 22 PCV1 is not associated with disease, while PCV2 is associated with a spectrum of disease symptoms called porcine circovirus-associated disease (PCVAD) 20, 21 first recognized as post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome.

Clinical signs include progressive weight loss, lethargy, dark-colored diarrhea, lymphadenopathy, paleness, and jaundice. The hallmark lesion of PCV2 infection is lymphopenia in the blood circulation and lymphodepletion in lymphoid organs in which lymphoid cells are replaced by histiocytes with intracytoplasmic inclusion bodies. Cofactors in disease progression are multifold as PCV2 is immunosuppressive 23 and include the composition of the virus itself;

coinfection by viruses such as porcine parvovirus and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, and bacteria such as Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae 24, 25 and host factors such as the breed of pigs, for example, purebred Landrace pigs being more susceptible than Duroc or Large White pigs. 26 Both types of PCV have a widespread global presence in swineherds: Antibodies to PCV1 and PCV2 were detected in archived pig sera taken as early as the 1970s, although the first clinical disease outbreaks of PCV2 were first reported in the second half of the 1990s. 21 The major route of transmission is via oral-nasal contact with infected feces, urine, or with infected pigs, but the possibility of vertical transmission through the placenta has been reported in field studies [27] [28] [29] and in experimental infection studies. 30, 31 PCVAD is a globally established disease with a huge impact on pig production prior to widespread vaccine availability. PCV2-specific vaccines became commercially available during the mid-2000s and proved efficacious in field trials. 21 In our studies, we used a capsid-based subunit vaccine mar- showed efficacy in experimental studies 32 and field investigations, that is, a reduction in mortality by 50% and increased weight gain upon vaccination of piglets at weaning and 3 weeks later. 33 In one experimental study, effectiveness of immunization of the dam was investigated: Despite formation of antibodies after immunization at 4 weeks of gestation, virus inoculation at 8 weeks did not prevent transmission to the fetus. 34 Importantly, PCV is extremely robust and resistant to disinfection procedures. It is stable at pH 3 and resistant to heat inactivation even up to 120°C for 30 minutes. 24 It is also resistant to inactivation by chloroform. 35 PCV2 appears more resistant to disinfection than PCV1 where pasteurization for 10 hours at 60°C and dry-heat treatment for 72 hours at 80°C had some effect, but no effect was observed for 30-minute dry-heat treatment at 120°C; however, wet-heat treatment up to 80°C proved efficacious in virus inactivation. 36 Experimentally, effectiveness in virus titer reduction was observed for disinfectants such as Virkon ® -S, sodium hydroxide, 3%-6% sodium hypochlorite (bleach), Roccal D Plus ® , 1-Stroke Environ ® , Fulsan ® , and Tek-Trol ® ; however, no effectiveness was observed for Nolvasan ® , Neogen DC&R ® , Weladol ® , or ethanol. 37 Bleach is effective, but it is not known whether its use is effective in the field. 38 Iowa State University has published a disinfection protocol to be used in disinfection of pens, which starts with a degreaser detergent followed by decontamination with Virkon ® -S (Antec International, Sudbury, Suffolk, UK) at 1:30 dilution and then fogging with Clidox ® -S (US Pharmacal Com LLC, Erie, CO) at 1:5:1 dilution. 21 Porcine circovirus is on the list of DPF pathogens of exclusion mainly because of its potential impact on the health of pig herds.

Its zoonotic potential for man has not been clearly established, as circoviruses have been found in other species but not in humans. 39 Exposure in humans has been claimed by serological testing for antibodies: About 20% of healthy adults and 30% of hospital patients with fever of unknown etiology were found to be antibody positive, 40 but this has not been confirmed in other studies. 41 Also, antibodies to PCV1 or PCV2 proved not detectable in a population of professionals with frequent, close contact to pigs, that is, veterinarians in swine practice. 42 There are indications that the circovirus can infect some selected human cell lines during in vitro coculture, but this infection is non-productive 43 for primary human blood mononuclear cells, and there is conflicting data on susceptibility to in vitro infection. 44, 45 From these data, it appears that the risk of zoonosis of PCV is rather small. In non-human primate recipients of a porcine pancreatic islet product, there was no evidence observed for transmission of PCV 46 and also patients who received clinical porcine islet transplants did not show evidence for PCV. 14,47 However, it is not clear in the latter study whether the source pigs were PCV positive. The issue of potential cross species transmission received attention after DNA from PCV1 was reported in rotavirus vaccines prepared independently by two pharmaceutical companies: in one of these, DNA from PCV2 was also detected. After consideration of this finding, regulatory authorities in Europe 48 and USA 49 concluded that due to minimal risk of zoonotic potential, this DNA presence does not pose a safety concern and that there is no need to restrict the use of these vaccines. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization are utilized to detect PCV2 in tissues and used in conjunction with qPCR. 50 Environmental samples taken using swabs have been used to detect environmental PCV viral DNA using PCR.

The population phase of SAF operation poses the highest risk of introduction of a pathogen. In the rare instance that an SAF is populated with a DPF source of animals such as was the case for the population of the Living Cell Technologies SAF in New Zealand using South Auckland island pigs that were DPF by virtue of geographic isolation on a remote island, this risk is reduced, but not eliminated.

Another potential example of this situation would be the population of a new SAF using founder animals from an existing SAF. In such cases, pathogen exposure during transport for population poses the highest, but logistically manageable, risk. However, the animals themselves, by virtue of their intrinsic high health status, do not pose a significant risk. Furthermore, in such instances, population can be effected using founder animals of any life stage including adults with fully developed, albeit naïve, and immune systems.

In our situation, we were tasked with populating a new, unoccupied SAF with DPF founder animals derived from existing SPF herds based on the criteria that certain domestic swine breeds have been found to possess a higher propensity for high islet of Langerhans yields from adult donors. 51 Selection of founder animals was not based on PERV C negativity, but a proportion of the founder animals were subsequently found to be PERV C negative.

Our SAF was populated with CDCD piglets derived from vaccinated SPF sows originating from a multiplier unit. The initial population for antibody titers to PPV and Leptospirosis close to initiation of pregnancy. PCV viremia was also checked at this timepoint by PCR testing. PCV viremia monitoring via PCR was then performed repeatedly during the gestation period. If a sow exhibited antibody titers to PPV or Leptospirosis or was viremic for PCV at any point during gestation, the sow was excluded. Once initiated, the PCV vaccination program greatly reduced the level of PCV viremia in the multiplier unit, increasing the available number of suitable sows for SAF population. All C-section derivations conducted at the SAF successfully removed all DPF pathogens and the prevented pathogen entry, that is, infectious agents present in the sow were prevented from being transmitted to the CDCD founder piglets.

Our organization has constructed and operates a DPF SAF facil- Caesarian-section suite located directly adjacent to but separate from the SAF was used. When this suite was used, CDCD piglets were aseptically transferred to the SAF barrier in sealed, sterile containers in which they were transported directly into the quarantine nursery as indicated in Figure 2 to reduce contamination risk.

In total, 6 cohorts of pregnant sows were transported from the multiplier unit for SAF population. These sows were euthanized after the caesarian sections and never entered the barrier facility. The All founder animals were assessed for their DPF status (Table 3) before being released from quarantine, and in all cases, the DPF status including the absence of PCV was confirmed.

These population procedures were conducted successfully, and all CDCD founder piglets fulfilled DPF criteria. However, during the population phase, we were confronted with two separate outbreaks of PCV within the SAF. We here expand on specific activities undertaken to identify the cause and contain these outbreaks, so that the introduced virus was completely eliminated from the SAF and its herd.

During SAF population, animals were frequently assessed as part of a surveillance program for pathogen entry even in instance of subclinical symptomology in the new facility. During the first months of the population, frequent testing was made on serum samples, swabs, and tissue samples taken from sentinel animals used for necropsies (full sentinels) and piglets that died or were humanely euthanized due to health issues. This rigorous surveillance program led to the rapid discovery of PCV outbreak #1. 

The first SAF outbreak involved cohort #1. All piglets were PCV negative upon release from quarantine nursery at 3 weeks of age when they were moved, still under quarantine, into an empty animal holding room. At 4 weeks of age, PCV was detected in sentinel serum and tissue via PCR. Subsequent intense environmental surveillance of the entire facility for PCV contamination was performed using swabs and PCR. This resulted in the detection of PCV in grease residue that remained on penning in another barrier animal holding room that had been disinfected but had not yet been populated. An adjacent room had been similarly disinfected, but the penning had then been manually scrubbed with water containing 10% bleach to "polish" the stainless steel resulting in no detectable PCV contamination. We concluded that the cause of infection was an ineffective cleaning/degreasing of stainless steel penning that apparently then harbored and protected the PCV particles from disinfection. Furthermore, it was found that the fabrication of the stainless steel penning occurred in close proximity to commercial swine production further bolstering our conclusion.

Cohort #1 was subsequently euthanized. All items that were not permanently affixed to the affected room were immediately disposed of, and the room was extensively cleaned with detergent and water to remove all feces and waste material. All penning in all animal rooms were then wiped with chlorine dioxide (Clidox ® ), degreased with a commercial degreaser, scrubbed with a detergent/10% bleach water solution, and then wiped with Clidox ® again.

Following this treatment, all animal rooms within the barrier were cleaned with water and then sequentially with the following: [1] potassium peroxymonosulfate (Virkon ® -S or Trifectant ® ) foamed and allowed to dry on all surfaces prior to rinsing with water; [2] vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) fumigation; and [3] fogging with Clidox ® . Again, intense environmental surveillance was performed using swabs, all of which failed to return PCV-positive PCR results.

As a precautionary measure, the outbreak affected room was left empty for 6 months prior to a next population. Live sentinel animals were then placed into quarantine in the affected room, and frequent monitoring for PCV was conducted on these sentinels for approximately 2 months prior to resuming the population of the room.

Coincident with the cleaning and disinfection, while awaiting the results of cleaning program effectiveness, and before the second cohort's CDCD derivation was initiated; a change in location for subsequent C-section derivations was installed. This was based on risk assessment which found it prudent to maintain potentially infectious sows outside of the SAF envelope for the subsequent C-section derivations. This modular external Csection suite was located directly adjacent to, but separate from the facility (Figure 2 ).

After the cleaning of the facility described above, and using the external C-section suite, the delivery of piglets in cohorts #2, #3, #4, and #5 was without incident. All animals fulfilled DPF status and were released from quarantine into animal holding rooms at 3 weeks of age. Animals in cohorts #4 and #5 were cohoused in one of the animal holding rooms. Five weeks after entry of animals from cohort #5 in this room, pigs were found to be PCV positive by ELISA, IHC, and PCR. The affected room was immediately put into quarantine, and its differential pressure adjusted to be negative to adjacent spaces to contain the outbreak. Once again, an extensive environmental surveillance of the SAF barrier was performed using swabs and PCR analysis. This resulted in the isolation of PCV DNA from a sample Affected cohoused animals from both cohorts #4 and #5 were euthanized after the PCV diagnosis was confirmed. Members of cohorts #2 and 3# proved to be PCV negative and were maintained in their respective holding rooms within the barrier. Again, all items that were not permanently affixed to the affected room were disposed of. Extensive cleaning with detergent and water was performed to remove all feces and waste material. The room and penning were then foamed with potassium peroxymonosulfate which was allowed to dry on surfaces. This procedure was performed twice. Following this, the room was sterilized by chlorine dioxide fog, disinfected with potassium peroxymonosulfate foam and also with glutaraldehyde/ quaternary ammonium (Synergize ® ) foam. Disinfectants were applied, allowed to dry overnight, rinsed with water, allowed to dry, and then alternate disinfectants applied. This was performed multiple times until testing of the room using swabs, and PCV via PCR analysis was repeatedly confirmed negative. The affected room was left empty for 6 months prior to repopulation during which time it was also regularly tested for PCV via PCR. At the end of this period, live sentinel animals were placed in the room and tested for PCV for a period of approximately 2 months. After proving that there was no PCV emergent in these animals, the quarantine status of the room was discontinued, and the room returned to non-quarantine positive differential pressure.

Coincident with this cleaning period, cohort #6 was successfully delivered into the barrier without incident or emergent pathogenesis.

Considering both the risks of pathogen introduction with subsequent cohort derivations and the extent of genetic diversity present in the animals introduced in cohorts #2 and #3, it was decided that further entry of new animals was not warranted beyond cohort #6, and that subsequent herd expansion would be by an internal breeding program. As a result, following the derivation of piglets from cohort #6, the herd has been genetically closed.

Currently, more than 10 years after the 10-month population phase of operations concluded the herd remains closed, PCV negative, and meets all other DPF requirements.

While the risk is reduced, it is only with great diligence and attention to biosecurity protocols that we are able to successfully maintain a DPF SAF in the post-population phase, albeit at an annual operational cost of nearly $2 million USD.

Hiring of personnel who will enter the barrier is contingent upon successfully completing extensive health screening (Table 1 ) to reduce the risk of personnel transmission of pathogens to the DPF herd. Included in the criteria is testing for Hepatitis E (HEV) which is an important public health concern and with which an estimated one-third of the world's population has been infected, most asymptomatically. 53 HEV can be transmitted through blood, hence the concern from staff working with the pigs or islets. 53 The xenozoonotic potential of HEV is of importance in DPF swine production as 

While the design, construction, and operation of a SAF are all challenging, the population phase of SAF operation poses the highest risk for the introduction of a pathogen which, depending on the pathogen, can be manageable or devastating to program success. In our experience, despite successful initial introduction of DPF piglets from SPF sows via CDCD during the population phase of a new SAF, we were confronted with two separate PCV outbreaks. These outbreaks were not expected as the CDCD piglets upon release at three weeks of age from quarantine nursery were in all cases free of all DPF listed agents of exclusion. Both PCV outbreaks first occurred after piglets were moved into animal holding rooms. In the first outbreak, it was found that the means of transmission was via the stainless steel penning in animal holding rooms; the second via employee facilitated contamination from a PCV high risk area, the external C-section suite located adjacent to the SAF, which was then transferred by the employee's entry into the barrier and direct contact with PCV-negative, naïve pigs. In both instances, the outbreak was identified quickly and the source of the PCV was ultimately able to be determined, indicating that the diagnostics used were sensitive enough to detect PCV early in the course of infection.

The first outbreak represents an unusual circumstance but illustrates the extreme robustness of the PCV virus. The stainless steel penning was manufactured at a facility close to a commercial pig herd and employees at the stainless steel manufacturer also had close contact with the nearby swine farm. Some of these individuals also installed the penning with its rust-preventative grease in the barrier prior to its closure after construction. Apparently, in some rooms, the penning was then insufficiently degreased before disinfection, and intact PCV virus was thereby protected by the grease on the stainless steel allowing survival during disinfection using aqueous media. The ensuing physical contact of the piglets and the greasy penning likely then liberated the PCV and initiated the outbreak. The second outbreak was not a tremendous surprise: It was known that each cohort of C-section piglet derivations involved extensive set up, surgical activities, and clean up-each of which was a high risk activity. Careful planning was in place to minimize the potential for personnel to be a vector for transmission, but proved ineffective.

During the period of both PCV outbreaks, we did not observe any symptom of PCVAD, presumably because the frequent diagnostic testing program enabled the detection of PCV at an early phase post infection and likely also to the absence of other infectious agents which would have contributed to the disease load on the piglets. 23 Of the many pathogens in the DPF excluded agents' list, 11, 14, 16, 17 PCV was in 2007 a pathogen of most concern given its robustness, difficulty to inactivate, uncontrolled epidemic status in the United States with no vaccine available until early 2007, and its potential for vertical transmission in utero. 27, 28 The barrier facility was populated at a time when PCV in the swine industry of the United States was considered ubiquitous and at an epidemic status causing great morbidity and mortality. 20, 21 Half a year before the first piglets were delivered, PCV was first reported positive in the multiplier unit where the donor sows were housed. Therefore, essentially during the phase of populating the DPF barrier, the herd in the multiplier unit was in a first phase of viral contact, active viremia, and seroconversion. Since the start of operations at the multiplier unit in 2005, we had not observed any animal showing PCVAD. Initially,we took no special precautions at the time to specifically prevent PCV entry into the barrier, but were successful in the case of cohort #1. After the first PCV outbreak, PCV-specific preventive measures were taken including testing of sows for PCV viremia at breeding and during pregnancy. Once a vaccine became available, starting with cohort #4, we initiated vaccination of sows used for producing founder animals before and during pregnancy. It is not clear whether vaccination was necessary, but the outcome was successful as none of the piglets delivered to the barrier facility were PCV positive immediately following introduction. Exacerbating the uncertainty of whether vaccination was a necessity are the facts that PCV vaccines are typically developed for first administration at an early life stage, 21, 33 and that vaccination of pregnant sows does not completely prevent infection of piglets via the transplacental route. 34 However, the exclusion of sows exhibiting PCV viremia during pregnancy is supported by the fact that transplacental infection of fetuses is quite likely in such animals. 29, 30 The SAF was designed with separate animal holding rooms, each with its own UV-sterilized water supply, separate single-pass ventilation (with positive or negative differential pressure relative to adjacent spaces), and Danish entry. This compartmentalized, isolation enabling design facilitated successful containment of the outbreak, depopulation of only PCV infected animals in affected animal holding rooms, disinfection, and repopulation without requiring the depopulation of adjacent, unaffected rooms within the barrier. Interestingly, we obtained infrequent PCR-positive environmental swab sample results from the empty, quarantined rooms despite repeated cleaning and disinfection. However, when sentinel animals were brought in the room, and PCV did not emerge in these animals, it indicated that the PCR-positive results might have detected remaining DNA fragments from non-infectious virus. We concluded that the design of the facility, with completely separate and isolatable animal holding rooms, worked in this approach to contain a potentially devastating infectious outbreak and prevent its spread. 

Test the environment repeatedly prior to population;

Continue to perform frequent testing throughout the quarantine period to catch outbreaks early and prevent spread.

We demonstrated that despite the presence of a high PCV infection risk during population it is possible to populate a PCV-negative DPF swineherd during a PCV epidemic. With the advent of widespread vaccination, the risk for PCV infection has diminished, but many of the risks and risk-reduction strategies we have described are relevant to not only PCV, but to other endemic or emergent swine pathogens on DPF excluded pathogen lists.

There have been a number of emergent diseases which have been identified since the establishment of our DPF SAF. Not all of them have a zoonotic potential but these diseases would definitely adversely impact the health of the DPF herd. Porcine Endemic Diarrhea (PED) emerged in the United States and caused an epidemic beginning in 2013 with very high morbidity and mortality in piglets and leading to the loss of more than 10% of the US pig population. 55 PCV3 is on the increase in adult pigs with much to be learned about its significance, 50 and Seneca Valley Virus (Senecavirus A) is of concern due to the similarity of lesions it causes to Foot and Mouth Disease. 56 The risk from a strain of influenza which can pass from people to pigs is ever present. African Swine Fever (ASV) is of growing concern in Eastern Europe and parts of Africa.

The care and biosecurity under which the SAF was populated and continues to be managed indicate that, while challenging, maintaining a clinically suitable herd of DPF pigs long term is feasible.

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8278-2461

Xenotransplantation -federal regulatory considerations

Use of genetically-engineered pig donors in islet transplantation

Genome-wide inactivation of porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs)

Pig organs for transplantation into humans: a jewish view

Pontifica academia proVita, prospects for xenotransplantation: scientific aspects and ethical considerations* (Vatican City, 2001): a critical review

Position paper of the ethics committee of the international xenotransplantation association

Current status of Xenotransplantation and prospects for clinical application

First update of the International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes-Executive summary

Progress in clinical encapsulated islet xenotransplantation

Clinical benefit of islet xenotransplantation for the treatment of type 1 diabetes

Guidance for Industry: Source Animal, Product, Preclinical, and Clinical Issues Concerning the use of Xenotransplantation Products in Humans. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration

The application of specific pathogen-free animals to research and production

First update of the international xenotransplantation association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type1 diabetes -chapter 5: recipient monitoring and response plan for preventing disease transmission

Microbiological safety of the first clinical pig islet Xenotransplantation trial in New Zealand

Recent knowledge on hepatitis E virus in Suidae reservoirs and transmission routes to human

Infection in xenoCircoviruses and Xenotransplantation transplantation

An approach to the control of disease transmission in pig-to-human Xenotransplantation

First update of the International xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes-Chapter 2a: source pigs-preventing xenozoonoses

Guide for the Care and use of Laboratory Animals, 8th edn

Porcine circovirus type 2 associated disease: update on current terminology, clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and intervention strategies

Porcine circovirus type 2 and porcine circovirus-associated disease

A novel porcine circovirus distantly related to known circoviruses is associated with porcine dermatitis and nephropathy syndrome and reproductive failure

Porcine circoviruses and xenotransplantation

Diseases of Swine

Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2): pathogenesis and interaction with the immune system

Evidence of breeddependent differences in susceptibility to porcine circovirus type-2-associated disease and lesions

Myocarditis and abortion associated with intrauterine infection of sows with porcine circovirus 2

Transplacental infection with PCV-2 associated with reproductive failure in a gilt

Multiple porcine circovirus 2-associated abortions and reproductive failure in a multisite swine production unit

Birth abnormalities in pregnant sows infected intranasally with porcine circovirus 2

Viremia and effect of fetal infection with porcine viruses with special reference to porcine circovirus 2 infection

Comparison of commercial and experimental porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccines using a triple challenge with PCV2, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), and porcine parvovirus (PPV)

A field evaluation of mortality rate and growth performance in pigs vaccinated against porcine circovirus type 2

Effect of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccination of the dam on PCV2 replication in utero

Some biological and physico-chemical properties of porcine circovirus

Resistance of porcine circovirus and chicken anemia virus to virus inactivation procedures used for blood products

Susceptibility of porcine circovirus type 2 to commercial and laboratory disinfectants

Infection Prevention and Control of Epidemic-and Pandemic-Prone Acute Respiratory Infections in Health Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Annex G, Use of disinfectants: alcohol and bleach

Assessing the risk potential of porcine circoviruses for xenotransplantation: consensus primer-PCR-based search for a human circovirus

Presence of antibodies reacting with porcine circovirus in sera of humans, mice, and cattle

Porcine circoviruses: a review

Analysis of seroconversion to porcine circovirus 2 among veterinarians from the United States and Canada

Infection studies on human cell lines with porcine circovirus type 1 and porcine circovirus type 2

Infection of leucocyte cell cultures derived from different species with pig circovirus

Ultrastructural alterations in human blood leukocytes induced by porcine circovirus type 1 infection

Absence of transmission of potentially xenotic viruses in a prospective pig to primate islet xenotransplantation study

Monitoring for presence of potentially xenotic viruses in recipients of pig islet xenotransplantation

European Medicines Agency sees no safety concerns with the Rotarix oral vaccine

Vaccines and related biological products advisory committee meeting background material. Porcine Circovirus and Rotavirus Vaccines

Swine Health Information Center and Center for Food Security and Public Health

What strain of pig should be used?

An emerging global disease -from discovery towards control and cure

Xenotransplantation and hepatitis E virus. Xenotransplantation

Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus infection: Etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis and immunophylaxis

Pathogen elimination and prevention within a regulated, Designated Pathogen Free, closed pig herd for long-term breeding and production of xenotransplantation materials