PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

Comparison of real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assays for detection of swine hepatitis E virus in fecal samples.

Journal:
Journal of clinical microbiology
Year:
2014
Authors:
Gerber, Priscilla F et al.
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine · United States

Plain-English summary

This study looked at different tests for finding the swine hepatitis E virus (HEV) in pig poop. Researchers compared two types of tests that can detect all four major types of the virus and two tests that focus on just two specific types. They tested samples from pigs that were purposely infected with one type of the virus and from other pigs whose virus exposure was unknown. The results showed that the first two tests were much better at finding the virus compared to the other two tests, which struggled to detect it at all. Overall, the first tests were more reliable for detecting swine hepatitis E virus in the samples.

Abstract

Hepatitis 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 (&#x3ba; = 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.

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: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24430450/