The high genetic similarity between rhinoviruses and enteroviruses remains as a pitfall for molecular diagnostic tools: A three-year overview.
Diagnosis, Differential
Enterovirus
/ classification
Enterovirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Genome, Viral
Genomics
/ methods
Humans
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
Phylogeny
Picornaviridae Infections
/ diagnosis
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Respiratory Tract Infections
/ diagnosis
Rhinovirus
/ classification
Diagnostic tools
Genetic characterisation
Molecular techniques
Respiratory viruses
Journal
Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases
ISSN: 1567-7257
Titre abrégé: Infect Genet Evol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101084138
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2019
11 2019
Historique:
received:
26
05
2019
revised:
29
07
2019
accepted:
06
08
2019
pubmed:
12
8
2019
medline:
22
4
2020
entrez:
12
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Enteroviruses (EVs) and rhinoviruses (RVs) belong to the Enterovirus genus within the Picornaviridae family, and show genetic similarities. These viruses are related to mild diseases, but EVs infections can sometimes lead to more severe complications. Current diagnostic molecular techniques should discriminate between the four EV and the three RV species that infect humans. The aim was to revise the EV and RV PCR-confirmed specimens by sequencing for genetic characterisation. Respiratory tract specimens were collected from patients with suspicion of respiratory infection. Respiratory viruses' laboratory-confirmation was performed by commercial multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays. Genetic characterisation of all EV and in a selection of RV was performed based on the phylogenetic analyses of partial VP1 and VP4/2 sequences, respectively. From 19,957 tested specimens, 309 (1.5%) were EV-positive, 2546 (12%) were RV-positive, and 233 (1%) were EV/RV co-detections. The phylogenetic analyses revealed that: among single EV detections, 177/309 (57%) were characterised as EV, 2/309 (1%) as RV, and 130/309 (42%) could not be typed; among single 1771 RV detections (Ct < 35), 1651/1771 (93%) were characterised as RV, 3/1771 (0.3%) as EV and 117/1771 (6.7%) could not be typed. Among EV/RV co-detections, 62/233 (27%) were characterised as EV, 130/233 (56%) as RV and 41/233 (18%) could not be typed. A diagnostic method well considered for routine laboratory-confirmation of respiratory viruses should discriminate EV and RV targets. RVs are usually associated with mild respiratory disease, but the potential relatedness of EVs to neurological complications makes their monitoring mandatory. Therefore, an accurate detection and differentiation should be required in commercial diagnostic solutions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Enteroviruses (EVs) and rhinoviruses (RVs) belong to the Enterovirus genus within the Picornaviridae family, and show genetic similarities. These viruses are related to mild diseases, but EVs infections can sometimes lead to more severe complications. Current diagnostic molecular techniques should discriminate between the four EV and the three RV species that infect humans. The aim was to revise the EV and RV PCR-confirmed specimens by sequencing for genetic characterisation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Respiratory tract specimens were collected from patients with suspicion of respiratory infection. Respiratory viruses' laboratory-confirmation was performed by commercial multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays. Genetic characterisation of all EV and in a selection of RV was performed based on the phylogenetic analyses of partial VP1 and VP4/2 sequences, respectively.
RESULTS
From 19,957 tested specimens, 309 (1.5%) were EV-positive, 2546 (12%) were RV-positive, and 233 (1%) were EV/RV co-detections. The phylogenetic analyses revealed that: among single EV detections, 177/309 (57%) were characterised as EV, 2/309 (1%) as RV, and 130/309 (42%) could not be typed; among single 1771 RV detections (Ct < 35), 1651/1771 (93%) were characterised as RV, 3/1771 (0.3%) as EV and 117/1771 (6.7%) could not be typed. Among EV/RV co-detections, 62/233 (27%) were characterised as EV, 130/233 (56%) as RV and 41/233 (18%) could not be typed.
CONCLUSIONS
A diagnostic method well considered for routine laboratory-confirmation of respiratory viruses should discriminate EV and RV targets. RVs are usually associated with mild respiratory disease, but the potential relatedness of EVs to neurological complications makes their monitoring mandatory. Therefore, an accurate detection and differentiation should be required in commercial diagnostic solutions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31401308
pii: S1567-1348(19)30214-X
doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2019.103996
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103996Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.