Comparison of nasal swabs and handmade foam cubes for detecting equine herpesvirus 5 (EHV-5) by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).

IF 0.8 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Anna Charbonnel, Jean-Pierre Lavoie, Tristan Juette, Valérie Grenier St-Sauveur, Serge Denis, Carl A Gagnon, Mathilde Leclère
{"title":"Comparison of nasal swabs and handmade foam cubes for detecting equine herpesvirus 5 (EHV-5) by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).","authors":"Anna Charbonnel, Jean-Pierre Lavoie, Tristan Juette, Valérie Grenier St-Sauveur, Serge Denis, Carl A Gagnon, Mathilde Leclère","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The control of equine respiratory infections is a biosecurity challenge. Respiratory viruses are often rapidly detected using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) on nasal swabs. In the past, some laboratories developed handmade techniques to increase the amount of nasal secretions collected, without comparing them with nasal swabs when qPCR replaced the use of viral culture. The objectives of this study were to compare nasal swabs and handmade foam cubes for i) the detection of a common equine herpesvirus (EHV-5) by qPCR, and ii) their tolerability. Forty-five polyester swabs and foam cubes were used to sample 9 horses 5 times. These were then analyzed by qPCR for EHV-5. Agreement of qPCR results (positive, suspect, negative) was assessed using the intraclass correlation (ICC) and the avoidance scores were compared using a proportional odds mixed model. The ICC showed moderate agreement (0.61, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Twenty-seven percent of the samples were positive or suspect with either swabs or foam cubes, whereas 18% were strictly positive with swabs and 11% with foam cubes. Avoidance scores were not statistically different. Both methods have an acceptable agreement. Handmade foam cubes did not provide additional diagnostic value compared to polyester swabs, which is the method presently recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":93919,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire","volume":"89 1","pages":"11-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11665725/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The control of equine respiratory infections is a biosecurity challenge. Respiratory viruses are often rapidly detected using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) on nasal swabs. In the past, some laboratories developed handmade techniques to increase the amount of nasal secretions collected, without comparing them with nasal swabs when qPCR replaced the use of viral culture. The objectives of this study were to compare nasal swabs and handmade foam cubes for i) the detection of a common equine herpesvirus (EHV-5) by qPCR, and ii) their tolerability. Forty-five polyester swabs and foam cubes were used to sample 9 horses 5 times. These were then analyzed by qPCR for EHV-5. Agreement of qPCR results (positive, suspect, negative) was assessed using the intraclass correlation (ICC) and the avoidance scores were compared using a proportional odds mixed model. The ICC showed moderate agreement (0.61, P < 0.001). Twenty-seven percent of the samples were positive or suspect with either swabs or foam cubes, whereas 18% were strictly positive with swabs and 11% with foam cubes. Avoidance scores were not statistically different. Both methods have an acceptable agreement. Handmade foam cubes did not provide additional diagnostic value compared to polyester swabs, which is the method presently recommended.

定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR)检测马疱疹病毒5型(EHV-5)鼻拭子与手工泡沫块的比较
马呼吸道感染的控制是一项生物安全挑战。呼吸道病毒通常使用鼻拭子上的定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR)快速检测。过去,当qPCR取代病毒培养时,一些实验室开发了手工技术来增加鼻分泌物的收集量,而不将其与鼻拭子进行比较。本研究的目的是比较鼻拭子和手工泡沫块对一种常见马疱疹病毒(EHV-5)的qPCR检测,以及它们的耐受性。用45个聚酯棉签和泡沫块对9匹马进行了5次取样。然后用qPCR分析ehev -5。使用类内相关性(ICC)评估qPCR结果(阳性、可疑、阴性)的一致性,并使用比例优势混合模型比较回避得分。ICC显示中度一致(0.61,P < 0.001)。用棉签或泡沫块检测,27%的样本呈阳性或可疑,而用棉签检测,18%的样本呈严格阳性,用泡沫块检测,11%的样本呈阳性。回避得分无统计学差异。两种方法都有可接受的协议。与聚酯拭子相比,手工泡沫块没有提供额外的诊断价值,聚酯拭子是目前推荐的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信