Published August 12, 2020 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Panspecies molecular assays detect viral pathogens missed by real-time PCR/reverse-transcriptase PCR among pneumonia patients, Sarawak, Malaysia

Authors/Creators

Description

Abstract

Background

In a year-long pneumonia etiology study conducted June 2017 to May 2018 in Sarawak, Malaysia, 599 patients’ nasopharyngeal swab specimens were studied with real-time polymerase chain reaction (rPCR)/ reverse-transcription (rRT-PCR) assays for respiratory pathogens known to contribute to the high burden of lower respiratory tract infections. The study team sought to compare real-time assay results with panspecies conventional molecular diagnostics to compare sensitivities and learn if novel viruses had been missed.

Methods

Specimens were studied for evidence of adenovirus (AdV), enterovirus (EV) and coronavirus (CoV) with panspecies gel-based nested PCR/RT-PCR assays. Gene sequences of specimens positive by panspecies assays were sequenced and studied with the NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool software.

Results

There was considerable discordance between real-time and conventional molecular methods. The real-time AdV assay found a positivity of 10.4%; however, the AdV panspecies assay detected a positivity of 12.4% and the conventional AdV-Hexon assay detected a positivity of 19.6%. The CoV and EV panspecies assays similarly detected more positive specimens than the real-time assays, with a positivity of 7.8% by the CoV panspecies assay versus 4.2% by rRT-PCR, and 8.0% by the EV panspecies assay versus 1.0% by rRT-PCR. We were not able to ascertain virus viability in this setting. While most discordance was likely due to assay sensitivity for previously described human viruses, two novel, possible zoonotic AdV were detected.

Conclusions

The observed differences in the two modes of amplification suggest that where a problem with sensitivity is suspected, real-time assay results might be supplemented with panspecies conventional PCR/RT-PCR assays.

Files

Panspecies molecular assays detect viral pathogens missed by real-time PCR or reverse-transcriptase PCR among pneumonia patients, Sarawak, Malaysia.pdf

Files (546.8 kB)

Additional details

References

  • Murdoch DR, Howie SRC. The global burden of lower respiratory infections: making progress, but we need to do better. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(11):1162–3.
  • Troeger C, et al. Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of lower respiratory infections in 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(11):1191–210.
  • Bailey ES, et al. A mini review of the zoonotic threat potential of influenza viruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses, and enteroviruses. Front Public Health. 2018;6:104.
  • Fieldhouse JK, et al. A systematic review of evidence that enteroviruses may be zoonotic. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2018;7(1):164.
  • Gür S, Yapkiç O, Yilmaz A. Serological survey of bovine enterovirus type 1 in different mammalian species in Turkey. Zoonoses Public Health. 2008;55(2):106–11.
  • Grützmacher KS, et al. Codetection of respiratory syncytial virus in habituated wild Western lowland gorillas and humans during a respiratory disease outbreak. EcoHealth. 2016;13(3):499–510.
  • Chen EC, et al. Cross-Species Transmission of a Novel Adenovirus Associated with a Fulminant Pneumonia Outbreak in a New World Monkey Colony. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(7):e1002155.
  • Chiu CY, et al. A novel adenovirus species associated with an acute respiratory outbreak in a baboon colony and evidence of coincident human infection. MBio. 2013;4(2):e00084.
  • Phan TG, et al. Human adenovirus type 1 related to feline adenovirus: evidence of interspecies transmission. Clin Lab. 2006;52(9–10):515–8.
  • Borkenhagen LK, et al. Are adenoviruses zoonotic? A systematic review of the evidence. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2019;8(1):1679–87.
  • Burk M, et al. Viral infection in community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev. 2016;25(140):178.
  • Primack RB, Hall P. Biodiversity and Forest change in Malaysian Borneo. BioScience. 1992;42(11):829–37.
  • Toh T-H, et al. High prevalence of viral infections among hospitalized pneumonia patients in equatorial Sarawak, Malaysia. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(3):ofz074.
  • Jain S, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization among U.S. children. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):835–45.
  • Wellehan JF, et al. Detection and analysis of six lizard adenoviruses by consensus primer PCR provides further evidence of a reptilian origin for the atadenoviruses. J Virol. 2004;78(23):13366–9.
  • Lelli D, et al. Detection of coronaviruses in bats of various species in Italy. Viruses. 2013;5(11):2679–89.
  • World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe. Enterovirus surveillance guidelines: Guidelines for enterovirus surveillance in support of the Polio Eradication Initiate. Copenhagen: WHO; 2015. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/272810/EnterovirusSurveillanceGuidelines.pdf..
  • Vijgen L, et al. A pancoronavirus RT-PCR assay for detection of all known coronaviruses. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;454:3–12.
  • Lu X, Erdman DD. Molecular typing of human adenoviruses by PCR and sequencing of a partial region of the hexon gene. Arch Virol. 2006;151(8):1587–602.
  • Savolainen C, et al. Genetic clustering of all 102 human rhinovirus prototype strains: serotype 87 is close to human enterovirus 70. J Gen Virol. 2002;83(2):333–40.
  • Saha S, et al. Unbiased metagenomic sequencing for pediatric meningitis in Bangladesh reveals neuroinvasive Chikungunya virus outbreak and other unrealized pathogens. mBio. 2019;10(6):e02877–19.
  • Yoshii Y, et al. Identification of pathogens by comprehensive real-time PCR versus conventional methods in community-acquired pneumonia in Japanese adults. Infect Dis (Lond). 2016;48(11–12):782–8.