Comparison of three diagnostic techniques for detection of rotavirus and coronavirus in calf faeces in Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Compare real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and lateral flow immunochromatography assay (LAT) for the detection of rotavirus and coronavirus in faecal samples collected from diarrhoeic calves. DESIGN: Prospective survey. METHOD: Samples were tested at two separate facilities using a commercial ELISA and an in-house qRT-PCR. Simple logistic regression was performed to examine the relationship between the two tests. A subset of samples was screened using qRT-PCR, ELISA and a commercial LAT dipstick (132 faecal samples were tested for coronavirus and 122 samples for rotavirus). RESULTS: Of the 586 samples tested, 131 (22.39%) and 468 (79.86%) were positive for coronavirus and group A rotavirus, respectively, using qRT-PCR. The number of samples positive on ELISA for coronavirus and rotavirus was 73 (12.46%) and 225 (38.40%), respectively. Using LAT, 30 (22.73%) and 43 (35.35%) samples were positive for coronavirus and rotavirus, respectively. Simple linear regression revealed a statistically significant (P < 0.05) but weak (r(2) =-0.07 and -0.40) correlation between the rotavirus/coronavirus qRT-PCR and ELISA, respectively. There was also poor agreement between the LAT and qRT-PCR assays. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of the commercial ELISA and LAT assays evaluated in this study were low compared with qRT-PCR. The low positive and negative predictive values of the assays suggests that they were of limited diagnostic benefit in the population sampled.