Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Detecting canine distemper virus in dog samples with PCR tests
By Shin, Y J et al.·Published in Australian veterinary journal·2004·Department of Veterinary Pathology, South Korea·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of one-step RT-PCR and a nested PCR for the detection of canine distemper virus in clinical samples.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs suspected of having canine distemper virus (CDV) were tested using two different lab methods to see which could detect the virus better. The nested PCR method found the virus in blood, urine, saliva, and nasal swabs more often than the one-step RT-PCR method. Specifically, the nested PCR detected CDV in about 82% of blood samples and 75% of urine samples, while the one-step method only found it in 50% of those samples. This means that the nested PCR could be a more reliable test for diagnosing CDV in dogs.
People also search for: dog distemper symptoms · how to test for canine distemper · dog blood test for distemper
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a rapid and sensitive method for the detection of canine distemper virus (CDV) by nested PCR using clinical specimens. DESIGN: A nested PCR was developed, compared to a one-step RT-PCR and validated. PROCEDURE: Two sets of specific primers for a one-step RT-PCR and a nested PCR, targeting a 640 bp fragment and a 297 bp fragment, respectively, were selected from the highly conserved region of the nucleocapsid protein (NP) gene of CDV. The nested PCR and the one-step RT-PCR were used to amplify a part of the CDV NP gene of a CDV vaccinal strain and samples of urine, blood, nasal discharge and saliva from 29 dogs suspected of suffering CD. RESULTS: Both the one-step RT-PCR and the nested PCR reacted with the CDV vaccinal strain, but not with canine parvovirus. The expected 640 bp fragment of the NP gene was detected in 11/22 (50.0%) blood, 10/20 (50.0%) urine, 5/25 (20.0%) saliva and 6/27 (22.2%) nasal swab samples by one-step RT-PCR, whereas the nested PCR amplified an expected 297 bp fragment of the NP gene in 18/22 (81.8%) blood, 15/20 (75.0%) urine, 14/25 (56%) saliva and 19/27 (70.3%) nasal swab samples. CONCLUSION: The nested PCR detected CDV in blood, urine, nasal swab and saliva more frequently than did the one-step RT-PCR. Therefore, this assay should be a useful aid to antemortem diagnosis of CDV infections in dogs.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15088966/