BACKGROUND: Noroviruses (NoVs) are the leading cause of infectious gastroenteritis worldwide. Real-time reverse transcription PCR (real-time RT-PCR) is the preferred method of NoV detection for the majority of testing laboratories. Although the accepted target region for molecular detection assays is the conserved ORF1/ORF2 junction, multiple variations have been published with differences in primers, probes, reagents, multiplexing, etc. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the detection limit for GII.4 NoV real-time RT-PCR assays as well as the ability to detect the non-GII.4 NoV genotypes in each participating laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: A panel of 25 RNA samples was circulated to 18 testing laboratories for comparison of their real-time RT-PCR procedures for NoV detection. RESULTS: Multiple protocols with slight differences in reagents or conditions successfully detected 10 genome equivalents or fewer of NoV per reaction. Multiplex procedures were significantly associated (p=0.04) with false negative results, particularly for a GI.2 strain. Sensitive detection was associated with false positive results (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the data indicate that comparable results are produced under slightly different assay conditions. Crown
BACKGROUND: Noroviruses (NoVs) are the leading cause of infectious gastroenteritis worldwide. Real-time reverse transcription PCR (real-time RT-PCR) is the preferred method of NoV detection for the majority of testing laboratories. Although the accepted target region for molecular detection assays is the conserved ORF1/ORF2 junction, multiple variations have been published with differences in primers, probes, reagents, multiplexing, etc. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the detection limit for GII.4 NoV real-time RT-PCR assays as well as the ability to detect the non-GII.4 NoV genotypes in each participating laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: A panel of 25 RNA samples was circulated to 18 testing laboratories for comparison of their real-time RT-PCR procedures for NoV detection. RESULTS: Multiple protocols with slight differences in reagents or conditions successfully detected 10 genome equivalents or fewer of NoV per reaction. Multiplex procedures were significantly associated (p=0.04) with false negative results, particularly for a GI.2 strain. Sensitive detection was associated with false positive results (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the data indicate that comparable results are produced under slightly different assay conditions. Crown
Authors: Ambroos Stals; Elisabeth Mathijs; Leen Baert; Nadine Botteldoorn; Sarah Denayer; Axel Mauroy; Alexandra Scipioni; Georges Daube; Katelijne Dierick; Lieve Herman; Els Van Coillie; Etienne Thiry; Mieke Uyttendaele Journal: Food Environ Virol Date: 2012-11-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Shilu Mathew; Khalid Alansari; Maria K Smatti; Hassan Zaraket; Asmaa A Al Thani; Hadi M Yassine Journal: Viruses Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 5.048