| Literature DB >> 35042532 |
Huixin Liu1, Kaichuang Shi2,3, Jing Zhao1, Yanwen Yin4, Yating Chen1, Hongbin Si5, Sujie Qu4, Feng Long4, Wenjun Lu4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: African swine fever virus (ASFV), classical swine fever virus (CSFV) and atypical porcine pestivirus (APPV) have caused great economic losses to the swine industry in China. Since coinfections of ASFV, CSFV and APPV occur in certain pig herds, it is necessary to accurately and differentially detect these pathogens in field-collected samples. In this study, a one-step multiplex real-time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (multiplex qRT-PCR) was developed for the simultaneous and differential detection of ASFV, CSFV and APPV.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35042532 PMCID: PMC8764768 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-022-03144-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1Standard curves of the multiplex qRT-PCR. The triplicate standard curves indicated a linear correlation between the logarithm of the copy number and the Ct values. The concentrations of the standard plasmids (p-ASFV, p-CSFV and p-APPV) ranged from 2.52 × 108 to 2.52 × 100 copies/μL (5.04 × 108 to 5.04 × 100 copies per reaction)
Fig. 2Specificity analysis of the multiplex qRT-PCR using different viral strains. The standard recombinant plasmids (p-ASFV, p-CSFV and p-APPV), ASFV, CSFV, APPV and other viruses (PCV2, PRV, PRRSV, FMDV, PPV, PEDV, TGEV, PRoV, PDCoV, BVDV-1, BVDV-2 and BDV) were used to test the specificity
Fig. 3Sensitivity analysis of the multiplex qRT-PCR. The standard recombinant plasmids (p-ASFV, p-CSFV and p-APPV) were used to test the sensitivity. 1-9: 2.52 × 107 - 2.52 × 10− 1 copies/μL (final reaction concentrations)
Comparison of the Ct values between the singleplex and multiplex qRT-PCR
| Plasmid | Concentration (copies/μL) | 2.52 × 107 | 2.52 × 106 | 2.52 × 105 | 2.52 × 104 | 2.52 × 103 | 2.52 × 102 | 2.52 × 101 | 2.52 × 100 | 2.52 × 10−1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-ASFV | Singleplex qRT-PCR | 13.781 | 17.478 | 20.347 | 24.044 | 28.274 | 31.010 | 35.073 | 39.481 | – |
| Multiplex qRT-PCR | 13.846 | 16.859 | 20.052 | 24.052 | 27.862 | 31.227 | 34.776 | 39.351 | – | |
| p-CSFV | Singleplex qRT-PCR | 13.490 | 17.195 | 20.329 | 24.584 | 27.974 | 31.427 | 34.793 | 39.341 | – |
| Multiplex qRT-PCR | 13.788 | 17.011 | 20.433 | 24.418 | 28.270 | 31.837 | 35.074 | 39.857 | – | |
| p-APPV | Singleplex qRT-PCR | 12.172 | 15.430 | 19.161 | 23.145 | 27.183 | 30.502 | 33.480 | 36.519 | – |
| Multiplex qRT-PCR | 11.976 | 15.469 | 18.845 | 22.955 | 26.767 | 30.154 | 34.328 | 36.830 | – |
Repeatability analysis of the multiplex qRT-PCR
| Plasmid | Concentration (copies/μL) | Ct values of intra-assay | Ct value of inter-asssay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SD | CV (%) |
| SD | CV (%) | ||
| p-ASFV | 2.52 × 103 | 27.847 | 0.370 | 1.329 | 27.942 | 0.379 | 1.356 |
| 2.52 × 105 | 20.738 | 0.168 | 0.810 | 20.747 | 0.207 | 0.998 | |
| 2.52 × 107 | 13.845 | 0.166 | 1.199 | 13.725 | 0.124 | 0.903 | |
| P-CSFV | 2.52 × 103 | 28.001 | 0.153 | 0.546 | 27.946 | 0.186 | 0.666 |
| 2.52 × 105 | 20.359 | 0.200 | 0.982 | 20.457 | 0.239 | 1.168 | |
| 2.52 × 107 | 13.109 | 0.156 | 1.190 | 13.076 | 0.088 | 0.673 | |
| P-APPV | 2.52 × 103 | 27.328 | 0.152 | 0.556 | 27.314 | 0.137 | 0.502 |
| 2.52 × 105 | 19.125 | 0.267 | 1.396 | 19.128 | 0.207 | 1.082 | |
| 2.52 × 107 | 12.348 | 0.145 | 1.174 | 12.302 | 0.157 | 1.276 | |
Detection of clinical samples by the multiplex qRT-PCR
| Date | Numbers | ASFV (%) | CSFV (%) | APPV (%) | ASFV+CSFV (%) | ASFV+APPV (%) | CSFV+APPV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct, 2018 | 18 | 0 (0) | 2 (11.11) | 1 (5.56) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Nov, 2018 | 40 | 0 (0) | 9 (22.5) | 4 (10.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.50) |
| Dec, 2018 | 30 | 5 (16.67) | 6 (20.00) | 1 (3.33) | 3 (10.00) | 0 (0) | 1 (3.33) |
| Jan, 2019 | 38 | 5 (13.16) | 4 (10.53) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.63) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Feb, 2019 | 57 | 15 (26.32) | 5 (8.77) | 3 (5.26) | 3 (5.26) | 2 (3.51) | 1 (1.75) |
| Mar, 2019 | 36 | 10 (27.78) | 7 (19.44) | 0 (0) | 4 (11.11) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Apr, 2019 | 19 | 12 (63.16) | 3 (15.79) | 1 (5.26) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| May, 2019 | 16 | 16 (100.00) | 0 (0) | 2 (12.50) | 0 (0) | 1 (6.25) | 0 (0) |
| Jun, 2019 | 11 | 4 (36.36) | 1 (9.09) | 1 (9.09) | 0 (0) | 1 (9.09) | 0 (0) |
| Jul, 2019 | 12 | 12 (100.00) | 2 (16.67) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Aug, 2019 | 28 | 20 (71.43) | 2 (7.14) | 0 (0) | 2 (7.14) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Sep, 2019 | 15 | 15 (100.00) | 2 (13.33) | 0 (0) | 2 (13.33) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Oct, 2019 | 20 | 20 (100.00) | 1 (5.00) | 0 (0) | 1 (5.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Nov, 2019 | 24 | 21 (87.50) | 5 (20.83) | 3 (12.50) | 5 (20.83) | 3 (12.50) | 2 (8.33) |
| Dec, 2019 | 10 | 6 (60.00) | 1 (10.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Jan, 2020 | 10 | 10 (100.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Feb, 2020 | 10 | 7 (70.00) | 1 (10.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Jul, 2020 | 4 | 0 (0) | 4 (100.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Aug, 2020 | 10 | 8 (80.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Sep, 2020 | 26 | 14 (53.85) | 2 (7.69) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Oct, 2020 | 20 | 13 (65.00) | 6 (30.00) | 0 (0) | 4 (20.00) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Nov, 2020 | 32 | 15 (46.88) | 1 (3.13) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Dec, 2020 | 23 | 4 (17.39) | 0 (0) | 2 (8.70) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreement between the multiplex qRT-PCR and the reference methods
| Detection method | Number of positive samples | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ASFV | CSFV | APPV | |
| Multiplex qRT-PCR | 232/509 | 64/509 | 18/509 |
| Reference methods | 232/509 | 64/509 | 18/509 |
| Agreements | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Note: the reference methods refer to the real-time PCR/RT-PCR that was recommended for ASFV (Chapter 3.9.1), CSFV (Chapter 3.9.3) identification by the OIE (OIE Terrestrial Manual 2019) and the real-time RT-PCR for detection of APPV reported by Liu et al. with modification [25]
Fig. 4Phylogenetic tree based on partial p72 gene of ASFV. The tree was constructed using the neighbour-joining algorithm of MEGA5.0, and 1000 bootstrap replicates were performed to assign confidences to the groupings. The strains from this study were marked with triangle (△)
Primers and probes used for detection of ASFV, CSFV and APPV
| Primer and probe | Sequence (5′ → 3′) | Product size (bp) |
|---|---|---|
| ASFV-p72-F | GGCGTATAAAAAGTCCAGGAAATTC | 79 |
| ASFV-p72-R | TTCGGCGAGCGCTTTATC | |
| ASFV-p72-P | Texas Red-TCACCAAATCCTTTTGCGATGCAAGCT-BHQ2 | |
| CSFV-5’UTR-F | CCTGAGTACAGGACAGTCGTCAGT | 72 |
| CSFV-5’UTR-R | CCCTCGTCCACATAGCATCTC | |
| CSFV-5’UTR-P | JOE-TTCGACGTGAGCAGAAGCCCACC-BHQ1 | |
| APPV-5’UTR-F | GGCGTGCCCAAAGAGAAAT | 90 |
| APPV-5’UTR-R | GGCACTCTATCAAGCAGTAAGGTCTA | |
| APPV-5’UTR-P | FAM-TCGGGTCCACCATGCCCCTTT-BHQ1 |