Comparison of Viral RNA Extraction Protocols for Senecavirus A and Classical Swine Fever Virus.

IF 3.1 4区生物学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY

Folia microbiologica Pub Date : 2025-09-16 DOI:10.1007/s12223-025-01326-9

Antônio Augusto Fonseca Júnior, Mateus Laguardia-Nascimento, Aline Aparecida Silva Barbosa, Valdenia Lopes da Silva Gonçalves, Carla do Amaral Pinto, Tânia Rosária Pereira Freitas, Anselmo Vasconcelos Rivetti Júnior, Marcelo Fernandes Camargos

{"title":"Comparison of Viral RNA Extraction Protocols for Senecavirus A and Classical Swine Fever Virus.","authors":"Antônio Augusto Fonseca Júnior, Mateus Laguardia-Nascimento, Aline Aparecida Silva Barbosa, Valdenia Lopes da Silva Gonçalves, Carla do Amaral Pinto, Tânia Rosária Pereira Freitas, Anselmo Vasconcelos Rivetti Júnior, Marcelo Fernandes Camargos","doi":"10.1007/s12223-025-01326-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated four commercial viral RNA extraction protocols using samples inactivated with TRIzol®, aiming to detect Senecavirus A (SV-A) and Classical Swine Fever Virus (CSFV). The tested kits were: RNeasy® (Qiagen), IndiSpin (Indical), Aurum (BioRad), and Direct-zol (Zymo), which were compared to the traditional method with Tri Reagent (Sigma). The analyses were based on the sensitivity and speed of extractions in a routine laboratory setting. The results showed that adaptations in the protocols can increase detection sensitivity. Clinical samples were processed using different protocol variations, with RNeasy® demonstrating notable performance, including samples collected using GenoTube®, which suggests its viability for field molecular diagnosis. The study concludes that, although TRIzol® is effective, alternative methods offer practicality, shorter extraction time, and equivalent or superior sensitivity, especially in clinical samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":12346,"journal":{"name":"Folia microbiologica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia microbiologica","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-025-01326-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study evaluated four commercial viral RNA extraction protocols using samples inactivated with TRIzol®, aiming to detect Senecavirus A (SV-A) and Classical Swine Fever Virus (CSFV). The tested kits were: RNeasy® (Qiagen), IndiSpin (Indical), Aurum (BioRad), and Direct-zol (Zymo), which were compared to the traditional method with Tri Reagent (Sigma). The analyses were based on the sensitivity and speed of extractions in a routine laboratory setting. The results showed that adaptations in the protocols can increase detection sensitivity. Clinical samples were processed using different protocol variations, with RNeasy® demonstrating notable performance, including samples collected using GenoTube®, which suggests its viability for field molecular diagnosis. The study concludes that, although TRIzol® is effective, alternative methods offer practicality, shorter extraction time, and equivalent or superior sensitivity, especially in clinical samples.

查看原文本刊更多论文

赛尼加病毒A与猪瘟病毒RNA提取方法的比较。

本研究评估了四种商业病毒RNA提取方案，使用TRIzol®灭活的样品检测塞内卡病毒A （SV-A）和猪瘟病毒（CSFV）。检测试剂盒为：RNeasy®（Qiagen）、IndiSpin （Indical）、Aurum （BioRad）和Direct-zol (zimo)，与传统方法与Tri Reagent （Sigma）进行比较。分析是基于在常规实验室环境中提取的灵敏度和速度。结果表明，协议的调整可以提高检测灵敏度。临床样本使用不同的协议变体进行处理，RNeasy®表现出显著的性能，包括使用GenoTube®收集的样本，这表明其用于现场分子诊断的可行性。该研究得出结论，尽管TRIzol®是有效的，但替代方法具有实用性，提取时间更短，灵敏度相当或更高，特别是在临床样品中。

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

Folia microbiologica 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物

CiteScore

5.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Unlike journals which specialize ever more narrowly, Folia Microbiologica (FM) takes an open approach that spans general, soil, medical and industrial microbiology, plus some branches of immunology. This English-language journal publishes original papers, reviews and mini-reviews, short communications and book reviews. The coverage includes cutting-edge methods and promising new topics, as well as studies using established methods that exhibit promise in practical applications such as medicine, animal husbandry and more. The coverage of FM is expanding beyond Central and Eastern Europe, with a growing proportion of its contents contributed by international authors.