Effect of sampling site on the diagnosis of canine parvovirus infection in dogs using polymerase chain reaction.
diagnosis
polymerase chain reaction
puppy
serology
viral
vomiting
Journal
Journal of veterinary internal medicine
ISSN: 1939-1676
Titre abrégé: J Vet Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8708660
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
revised:
15
01
2022
received:
26
03
2021
accepted:
20
01
2022
pubmed:
29
1
2022
medline:
1
4
2022
entrez:
28
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate diagnosis is imperative in dogs with clinical signs of parvovirus infection (CPV-2). To assess quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) for the diagnosis of CPV-2 infection, and determine the optimal sampling site. Secondarily, to compare qRT-PCR with a point-of-care PCR kit (PCRun), and to assess sensitivity of serology for CPV diagnosis. Sixty dogs with naturally acquired parvovirus infection, 44 unvaccinated puppies, of which 16 were followed after first and second vaccination, 15 adult dogs, of which 10 were followed also after a booster vaccine, and 9 dogs with distemper virus infection. Prospective study. Samples from the rectum, blood, and pharynx were obtained for PCR. All dogs with a clinical diagnosis of parvovirus infection were positive by qRT-PCR in at least 1 sampling site (ie, rectum, blood, pharynx), and 50 (83%) of 60 were positive in all sites. qRT-PCR was negative in 67 (99%) of 68 healthy puppies (before-vaccination), puppies with distemper, and healthy adult dogs. Ten days after initial vaccination of puppies, 62% (fecal), 31% (blood), and 12% (pharyngeal) of samples were positive for CPV-2 on qRT-PCR. The proportion of positive pharyngeal samples decreased 20 days after vaccination and all sites were negative 12-28 days after second vaccination. Vaccinated adults were negative before and after booster vaccination. Molecular detection of CPV is sensitive, but specificity is hampered temporarily during the vaccination period. Blood, feces, and pharynx are suitable sampling sites. Fecal samples had the lowest sensitivity in sick dogs and highest positivity in puppies after vaccination.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate diagnosis is imperative in dogs with clinical signs of parvovirus infection (CPV-2).
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To assess quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) for the diagnosis of CPV-2 infection, and determine the optimal sampling site. Secondarily, to compare qRT-PCR with a point-of-care PCR kit (PCRun), and to assess sensitivity of serology for CPV diagnosis.
ANIMALS
METHODS
Sixty dogs with naturally acquired parvovirus infection, 44 unvaccinated puppies, of which 16 were followed after first and second vaccination, 15 adult dogs, of which 10 were followed also after a booster vaccine, and 9 dogs with distemper virus infection.
METHODS
METHODS
Prospective study. Samples from the rectum, blood, and pharynx were obtained for PCR.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All dogs with a clinical diagnosis of parvovirus infection were positive by qRT-PCR in at least 1 sampling site (ie, rectum, blood, pharynx), and 50 (83%) of 60 were positive in all sites. qRT-PCR was negative in 67 (99%) of 68 healthy puppies (before-vaccination), puppies with distemper, and healthy adult dogs. Ten days after initial vaccination of puppies, 62% (fecal), 31% (blood), and 12% (pharyngeal) of samples were positive for CPV-2 on qRT-PCR. The proportion of positive pharyngeal samples decreased 20 days after vaccination and all sites were negative 12-28 days after second vaccination. Vaccinated adults were negative before and after booster vaccination.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE
CONCLUSIONS
Molecular detection of CPV is sensitive, but specificity is hampered temporarily during the vaccination period. Blood, feces, and pharynx are suitable sampling sites. Fecal samples had the lowest sensitivity in sick dogs and highest positivity in puppies after vaccination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35090069
doi: 10.1111/jvim.16373
pmc: PMC8965247
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
591-598Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
Références
J Virol Methods. 2015 Aug;220:35-8
pubmed: 25889355
Cornell Vet. 1979 Apr;69(3):123-33
pubmed: 223812
Vet Res Commun. 2007 Aug;31 Suppl 1:209-12
pubmed: 17682877
Indian J Virol. 2010 Jun;21(1):31-44
pubmed: 23637476
J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Sep;34(9):2101-5
pubmed: 8862565
Vet J. 2017 Jan;219:15-21
pubmed: 28093104
J Vet Intern Med. 2022 Mar;36(2):591-598
pubmed: 35090069
Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Apr;14(4):678-9
pubmed: 18394298
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2018 Jan;30(1):140-143
pubmed: 28906180
J Virol Methods. 2006 Sep;136(1-2):65-70
pubmed: 16682086
Prev Vet Med. 2014 Nov 1;117(1):260-5
pubmed: 25175676
Virus Genes. 2009 Apr;38(2):249-58
pubmed: 19112611
Adv Vet Sci Comp Med. 1981;25:1-37
pubmed: 6275684
J Virol Methods. 2006 Apr;133(1):92-9
pubmed: 16313976
Vet Rec. 1984 Sep 1;115(9):201-10
pubmed: 6091317
J Virol. 1988 Jan;62(1):266-76
pubmed: 2824850
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2009 May;21(3):344-5
pubmed: 19407086
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 03;9(11):e111779
pubmed: 25365348
Vaccine. 2014 Jun 24;32(30):3850-3
pubmed: 24793948
J Virol Methods. 1995 Nov;55(3):427-33
pubmed: 8609207
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2005 Mar;17(2):133-8
pubmed: 15825493
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1996 Feb 15;208(4):542-6
pubmed: 8603904
Vet Rec. 2003 May 10;152(19):588-91
pubmed: 12762487
Vet Microbiol. 2005 Jan 5;105(1):19-28
pubmed: 15607080