Goodell Christa K, Zhang Jianqiang, Strait Erin, Harmon Karen, Patnayak Devi, Otterson Tracy, Culhane Marie, Christopher-Hennings Jane, Clement Travis, Leslie-Steen Pamela, Hesse Richard, Anderson Joe, Skarbek Kevin, Vincent Amy, Kitikoon Pravina, Swenson Sabrina, Jenkins-Moore Melinda, McGill Jodi, Rauh Rolf, Nelson William, O'Connell Catherine, Shah Rohan, Wang Chong, Main Rodger, Zimmerman Jeffrey J
Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA, and Veterinary Medical Research Institute (Building 1), 1802 University Boulevard, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-1240, USA (Goodell, Zhang, Strait, Harmon, Wang, Main, Zimmerman); Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA (Wang); Minnesota Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA (Patnayak, Otterson, Culhane); Animal Disease Research and Diagnostic Laboratory, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007, USA (Christopher-Hennings, Clement, Leslie-Steen); Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA (Hesse, Anderson, Skarbek); US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa 50010, USA (Vincent, Kitikoon, McGill); USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, Iowa 50010, USA (Swenson, Jenkins-Moore); Tetracore, Rockville, Maryland, 20850, USA (Rauh, Nelson); Thermo Fisher Scientific (Life Technologies), Austin, Texas 78744, USA (O'Connell, Shah).
Can J Vet Res. 2016 Jan;80(1):12-20.
The probability of detecting influenza A virus (IAV) in oral fluid (OF) specimens was calculated for each of 13 assays based on real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) and 7 assays based on virus isolation (VI). The OF specimens were inoculated with H1N1 or H3N2 IAV and serially diluted 10-fold (10(-1) to 10(-8)). Eight participating laboratories received 180 randomized OF samples (10 replicates × 8 dilutions × 2 IAV subtypes plus 20 IAV-negative samples) and performed the rRT-PCR and VI procedure(s) of their choice. Analysis of the results with a mixed-effect logistic-regression model identified dilution and assay as variables significant (P < 0.0001) for IAV detection in OF by rRT-PCR or VI. Virus subtype was not significant for IAV detection by either rRT-PCR (P = 0.457) or VI (P = 0.101). For rRT-PCR the cycle threshold (Ct) values increased consistently with dilution but varied widely. Therefore, it was not possible to predict VI success on the basis of Ct values. The success of VI was inversely related to the dilution of the sample; the assay was generally unsuccessful at lower virus concentrations. Successful swine health monitoring and disease surveillance require assays with consistent performance, but significant differences in reproducibility were observed among the assays evaluated.
基于实时逆转录聚合酶链反应(rRT-PCR)的13种检测方法以及基于病毒分离(VI)的7种检测方法,分别计算了口腔液(OF)标本中甲型流感病毒(IAV)的检测概率。将OF标本接种H1N1或H3N2 IAV并进行10倍系列稀释(10⁻¹至10⁻⁸)。八个参与实验室接收了180份随机的OF样本(10个重复×8个稀释度×2种IAV亚型加上20份IAV阴性样本),并采用他们选择的rRT-PCR和VI程序进行检测。使用混合效应逻辑回归模型对结果进行分析,确定稀释度和检测方法是通过rRT-PCR或VI在OF中检测IAV的显著变量(P < 0.0001)。病毒亚型对于通过rRT-PCR(P = 0.457)或VI(P = 0.101)检测IAV并不显著。对于rRT-PCR,循环阈值(Ct)值随稀释度一致增加,但变化范围很大。因此,不可能根据Ct值预测VI的成功与否。VI的成功与样本稀释度呈负相关;该检测方法在较低病毒浓度下通常不成功。成功的猪健康监测和疾病监测需要性能一致的检测方法,但在所评估的检测方法之间观察到了显著的可重复性差异。