Jane K Fieldhouse, Emily S Bailey, Teck-Hock Toh, King-Ching Hii, Kerry A Mallinson, Jakie Ting, John A Lednicky, Antoinette Berita, Tham Thi Nguyen, Diego Galan, Son T Than, See-Chang Wong, Toh-Mee Wong, Patrick J Blair, Gregory C Gray
{"title":"泛物种分子分析检测实时PCR/逆转录酶PCR在马来西亚沙捞越肺炎患者中遗漏的病毒病原体。","authors":"Jane K Fieldhouse, Emily S Bailey, Teck-Hock Toh, King-Ching Hii, Kerry A Mallinson, Jakie Ting, John A Lednicky, Antoinette Berita, Tham Thi Nguyen, Diego Galan, Son T Than, See-Chang Wong, Toh-Mee Wong, Patrick J Blair, Gregory C Gray","doi":"10.1186/s40794-020-00114-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In a year-long pneumonia etiology study conducted June 2017 to May 2018 in Sarawak, Malaysia, 599 patients' nasopharyngeal swab specimens were studied with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rPCR)/ reverse-transcription (rRT-PCR) assays for respiratory pathogens known to contribute to the high burden of lower respiratory tract infections. The study team sought to compare real-time assay results with panspecies conventional molecular diagnostics to compare sensitivities and learn if novel viruses had been missed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Specimens were studied for evidence of adenovirus (AdV), enterovirus (EV) and coronavirus (CoV) with panspecies gel-based nested PCR/RT-PCR assays. Gene sequences of specimens positive by panspecies assays were sequenced and studied with the NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was considerable discordance between real-time and conventional molecular methods. The real-time AdV assay found a positivity of 10.4%; however, the AdV panspecies assay detected a positivity of 12.4% and the conventional AdV-Hexon assay detected a positivity of 19.6%. The CoV and EV panspecies assays similarly detected more positive specimens than the real-time assays, with a positivity of 7.8% by the CoV panspecies assay versus 4.2% by rRT-PCR, and 8.0% by the EV panspecies assay versus 1.0% by rRT-PCR. We were not able to ascertain virus viability in this setting. While most discordance was likely due to assay sensitivity for previously described human viruses, two novel, possible zoonotic AdV were detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The observed differences in the two modes of amplification suggest that where a problem with sensitivity is suspected, real-time assay results might be supplemented with panspecies conventional PCR/RT-PCR assays.</p>","PeriodicalId":23303,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines","volume":"6 ","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40794-020-00114-2","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Panspecies molecular assays detect viral pathogens missed by real-time PCR/reverse-transcriptase PCR among pneumonia patients, Sarawak, Malaysia.\",\"authors\":\"Jane K Fieldhouse, Emily S Bailey, Teck-Hock Toh, King-Ching Hii, Kerry A Mallinson, Jakie Ting, John A Lednicky, Antoinette Berita, Tham Thi Nguyen, Diego Galan, Son T Than, See-Chang Wong, Toh-Mee Wong, Patrick J Blair, Gregory C Gray\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40794-020-00114-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In a year-long pneumonia etiology study conducted June 2017 to May 2018 in Sarawak, Malaysia, 599 patients' nasopharyngeal swab specimens were studied with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rPCR)/ reverse-transcription (rRT-PCR) assays for respiratory pathogens known to contribute to the high burden of lower respiratory tract infections. The study team sought to compare real-time assay results with panspecies conventional molecular diagnostics to compare sensitivities and learn if novel viruses had been missed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Specimens were studied for evidence of adenovirus (AdV), enterovirus (EV) and coronavirus (CoV) with panspecies gel-based nested PCR/RT-PCR assays. Gene sequences of specimens positive by panspecies assays were sequenced and studied with the NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was considerable discordance between real-time and conventional molecular methods. The real-time AdV assay found a positivity of 10.4%; however, the AdV panspecies assay detected a positivity of 12.4% and the conventional AdV-Hexon assay detected a positivity of 19.6%. The CoV and EV panspecies assays similarly detected more positive specimens than the real-time assays, with a positivity of 7.8% by the CoV panspecies assay versus 4.2% by rRT-PCR, and 8.0% by the EV panspecies assay versus 1.0% by rRT-PCR. We were not able to ascertain virus viability in this setting. While most discordance was likely due to assay sensitivity for previously described human viruses, two novel, possible zoonotic AdV were detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The observed differences in the two modes of amplification suggest that where a problem with sensitivity is suspected, real-time assay results might be supplemented with panspecies conventional PCR/RT-PCR assays.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40794-020-00114-2\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40794-020-00114-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40794-020-00114-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
摘要
背景:在2017年6月至2018年5月在马来西亚沙捞越进行的一项为期一年的肺炎病因学研究中,对599名患者的鼻咽拭子标本进行了实时聚合酶链反应(rPCR)/反转录(rRT-PCR)检测,以检测已知导致下呼吸道感染高负担的呼吸道病原体。该研究小组试图将实时检测结果与泛物种传统分子诊断进行比较,以比较灵敏度并了解是否遗漏了新型病毒。方法:采用泛种凝胶巢式PCR/RT-PCR方法,对标本进行腺病毒(AdV)、肠病毒(EV)和冠状病毒(CoV)检测。采用NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool软件对泛种检测阳性标本的基因序列进行测序和研究。结果:实时检测结果与常规分子检测结果存在较大差异。实时AdV检测结果为10.4%;然而,AdV泛种法的阳性检出率为12.4%,而传统的AdV- hexon法的阳性检出率为19.6%。冠状病毒和EV泛种检测同样比实时检测检测出更多的阳性标本,冠状病毒泛种检测的阳性率为7.8%,而rRT-PCR为4.2%,EV泛种检测的阳性率为8.0%,而rRT-PCR为1.0%。我们无法确定病毒在这种环境下的生存能力。虽然大多数不一致可能是由于先前描述的人类病毒的测定敏感性,但检测到两种新的可能的人畜共患AdV。结论:观察到的两种扩增模式的差异表明,在怀疑灵敏度问题的情况下,实时检测结果可能会与泛物种传统PCR/RT-PCR检测相补充。
Panspecies molecular assays detect viral pathogens missed by real-time PCR/reverse-transcriptase PCR among pneumonia patients, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Background: In a year-long pneumonia etiology study conducted June 2017 to May 2018 in Sarawak, Malaysia, 599 patients' nasopharyngeal swab specimens were studied with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rPCR)/ reverse-transcription (rRT-PCR) assays for respiratory pathogens known to contribute to the high burden of lower respiratory tract infections. The study team sought to compare real-time assay results with panspecies conventional molecular diagnostics to compare sensitivities and learn if novel viruses had been missed.
Methods: Specimens were studied for evidence of adenovirus (AdV), enterovirus (EV) and coronavirus (CoV) with panspecies gel-based nested PCR/RT-PCR assays. Gene sequences of specimens positive by panspecies assays were sequenced and studied with the NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool software.
Results: There was considerable discordance between real-time and conventional molecular methods. The real-time AdV assay found a positivity of 10.4%; however, the AdV panspecies assay detected a positivity of 12.4% and the conventional AdV-Hexon assay detected a positivity of 19.6%. The CoV and EV panspecies assays similarly detected more positive specimens than the real-time assays, with a positivity of 7.8% by the CoV panspecies assay versus 4.2% by rRT-PCR, and 8.0% by the EV panspecies assay versus 1.0% by rRT-PCR. We were not able to ascertain virus viability in this setting. While most discordance was likely due to assay sensitivity for previously described human viruses, two novel, possible zoonotic AdV were detected.
Conclusions: The observed differences in the two modes of amplification suggest that where a problem with sensitivity is suspected, real-time assay results might be supplemented with panspecies conventional PCR/RT-PCR assays.
期刊介绍:
Tropical Diseases, Travel Medicine and Vaccines is an open access journal that considers basic, translational and applied research, as well as reviews and commentary, related to the prevention and management of healthcare and diseases in international travelers. Given the changes in demographic trends of travelers globally, as well as the epidemiological transitions which many countries are experiencing, the journal considers non-infectious problems including chronic disease among target populations of interest as well as infectious diseases.