VTechWorks staff will be away for the Independence Day holiday from July 4-7. We will respond to email inquiries on Monday, July 8. Thank you for your patience.
 

Comparison of Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR Assays for Detection of Swine Hepatitis E Virus in Fecal Samples

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGerber, Priscilla F.en
dc.contributor.authorXiao, Chao-Tingen
dc.contributor.authorCao, Dianjunen
dc.contributor.authorMeng, Xiang-Jinen
dc.contributor.authorOpriessnig, Tanjaen
dc.contributor.departmentVirginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology. Center for Molecular Medicine and Infectious Diseasesen
dc.contributor.editorTang, Y.-W.en
dc.date.accessed2015-11-28en
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-29T04:13:28Zen
dc.date.available2015-11-29T04:13:28Zen
dc.date.issued2014-01-15en
dc.description.abstractHepatitis E virus (HEV) is a major cause of acute viral hepatitis in people in many developing countries and is also endemic in many industrialized countries. Mammalian HEV (mHEV) isolates can be divided into at least four recognized major genotypes. Several nucleic acid amplification techniques have been developed for mHEV detection, with great differences in sensitivity. The aim of this study was to compare the performances of two singleplex real-time reverse transcriptase (RT) PCR assays for broad detection of all four mHEV genotypes (assays A and B) and two duplex real-time RT-PCR assays for detection and differentiation of mHEV genotypes 3 and 4 (assays C and D). RNAs extracted from 28 fecal samples from pigs experimentally inoculated with HEV genotype 3 and 186 fecal samples from commercial pigs with unknown HEV exposure were tested by all four assays. In experimental samples, HEV RNA was detected in 96.4% (assay A), 39.2% (assay B), 14.2% (assay C), and 0% (assay D) of the samples. In field samples with unknown HEV exposure, HEV RNA was detected in 67.2% (assay A), 36.4% (assay B), 1.1% (assay C), and 0.5% (assay D) of the samples. The assays showed overall poor agreement (kappa = 0.19 to 0.03), with differences in detection rates between assays (P < 0.01). Assays A and B, which broadly detect HEV genotypes 1 to 4, had significantly higher detection rates for HEV RNA than the duplex assays C and D, which were both designed to detect and differentiate between HEV genotypes 3 and 4.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.citationGerber, Priscilla F. et al. (2014). Comparison of Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR Assays for Detection of Swine Hepatitis E Virus in Fecal Samples. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 52(4), 1045-1051. doi:10.1128/jcm.03118-13en
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.03118-13en
dc.identifier.issn0095-1137en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/64226en
dc.identifier.urlhttp://jcm.asm.org/content/52/4/1045en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherAmerican Society for Microbiologyen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.holderAmerican Society for Microbiologyen
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.titleComparison of Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase PCR Assays for Detection of Swine Hepatitis E Virus in Fecal Samplesen
dc.title.serialJournal of Clinical Microbiologyen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
J. Clin. Microbiol.-2014-Gerber-1045-51.pdf
Size:
301.08 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology
Destination Area: Global Systems Science (GSS)