| Literature DB >> 35048346 |
Yue Huang1,2, Nan Zhou1,2, Shihan Zhang1,2, Youqin Yi1,2, Ying Han1,2, Minqi Liu1,2, Yue Han1,2, Naiyang Shi1,2, Liuqing Yang1,2, Qiang Wang1,2, Tingting Cui1,2, Hui Jin3,4.
Abstract
Norovirus (NoV) is a major cause of sporadic cases and outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis (AGE), thereby imposing threat to health globally. It is unclear how quantitation of wastewater NoV reflects the incidence of human AGE infections; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of published NoV wastewater surveillance studies. A literature search was performed, and all studies on NoV wastewater surveillance were identified. Quantitative results were evaluated. The results showed that the overall detection rate of NoV in wastewater was 82.10% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 74.22-89.92%); NoV concentration was statistically significant in terms of season (P < 0.001), with higher concentration in spring and winter. There were positive correlations between NoV GII concentration in wastewater and GII AGE cases (rs = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.18-0.74, I2 = 0%), total AGE cases (rs = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.15-0.61, I2 = 23%) and NoV outbreaks (rs = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30-0.62, I2 = 0%). Results of cross-correlation analysis of partial data indicated that variations in GII concentration were consistent with or ahead of those in the number of AGE cases. The diversity of NoV genotypes in wastewater was elucidated, and the dominant strains in wastewater showed a consistent temporal distribution with those responsible for human AGE. Our study demonstrated the potential association of NoV detected in wastewater with AGE infections, and further studies are needed to confirm this conclusion.Entities:
Keywords: Detection; Human gastroenteritis; Meta-analysis; Norovirus; Systematic review; Wastewater surveillance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35048346 PMCID: PMC8769679 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-18202-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Fig. 1Flow diagram of included studies and the selection process
Characteristics of included studies
| Author | Country/region | Sampling time | Virus concentration methoda | PCR | N | GI detection rate | GII detection rate | GIV detection rate | Outcomeb | Genogroup | Reported seasonality | LOD (lg GC/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Wang et al. | Sweden | 2016.12–2017.12 | 4 | qRT-PCR | 26 | 1 | 1 | 0.73 | ①② | GI, GII, GIV | Yes | |
| (La Rosa et al. | Italy | 2007.1–2007.12 | 5 | RT-PCR | 75 | 0.1 | ②③ | GIV | No | |||
| (Kazama et al. | Japan | 2012.11–2013.3 | 2 | qRT-PCR | 17 | 0.82 | 0.65 | ①②③ | GI,GII | Yes | ||
| (Kamel et al. | Egypt | 2006.4–2007.2 | 1 | qRT-PCR | 72 | 0.15 | 0.3 | ②③ | GI,GII | No | ||
| (Fioretti et al. | Brazil | 2013.5–2014.5 | 4 | qRT-PCR | 52 | 0.52 | ②③ | GIV | No | |||
| (Carducci et al. | Italy | 2004.5–2005.3 | 3 | qRT-PCR | 12 | 0.8 | 0.8 | ①② | GI,GII | Yes | ||
| (Zhou et al. | China | 2014.1–2014.12 | 1 | qRT-PCR | 23 | 1 | 1 | ①③ | GI,GII | Yes | ||
| (Victoria et al. | Uruguay | 2011.3–2013.4 | 5 | RT-PCR | 116 | 0.31 | 0.65 | ③ | GI,GII | Yes | ||
| (Victoria et al. | Brazil | 2005.1–2005.12 | 1 | qRT-PCR | 24 | 0.4 | 0.67 | ①② | GI,GII | No | ||
| (Teixeira et al. | Brazil | 2008.11–2010.10 | 1 | RT-PCR | 24 | 0.17 | ③ | GIV | No | |||
| (Teixeira et al. | Brazil | 2008.11–2010.10 | 1 | RT-PCR | 24 | 0.79 | 0.71 | ③ | GI,GII | No | ||
| (Tao et al. | China | 2013.1–2013.12 | 1 | RT-PCR | 24 | 1 | 1 | ③ | GI,GII | No | ||
| (Suffredini et al. | Italy | 2011.1–2016.12 | 6 | RT-PCR | 19 | 0.84 | ③ | GII | No | |||
| (Skraber et al. | Luxembourg | 2008–2009 winters | 5 | RT-PCR | 78 | 0.44 | 0.97 | ③ | GI,GII | No | ||
| (Prado et al. | Brazil | 2005–2008 | 1 | qRT-PCR | 12 | 0.25 | ①③ | GII | No | |||
| (Prado et al. | Brazil | 2015.4–2016.3 | 3 | qRT-PCR | 48 | 0.94 | 0.98 | ③ | GI,GII | No | ||
| (Muscillo et al. | Italy | 2011.5–2012.5 | 6 | qRT-PCR | 307 | 0.22 | ②③ | GIV | No | |||
| (Montazeri et al. | United States | 2013.7–2014.6 | 5 | qRT-PCR | 12 | 0.83 | 0.83 | ①③ | GI,GII | Yes | ||
| (Masago et al. | Japan | 2012.8–2013.12 | 2 | qRT-PCR | 70 | 0.71 | 0.81 | ②③ | GI,GII | No | ||
| (Mabasa et al. | South Africa | 2015.4–2016.3 | 2 | qRT-PCR | 108 | 0.41 | 0.68 | ①③ | GI,GII | Yes |
a1 Adsorption-extraction; 2 Polyethylene glycol precipitation; 3 Ultrafiltration; 4 Elution and skimmed-milk flocculation procedure; 5 Ultracentrifugation; 6 Other methods
b① Concentration of NoV in wastewater; ② Information reflecting population prevalence; ③ Information of genotyping
Fig. 2Boxplot of seasonal variation of NoV GI and GII concentrations in wastewater
Fig. 3Forest plots of correlation between NoV GI and GII detection in wastewater and number of a corresponding genogroups of AGE cases, c total AGE cases, and e outbreaks; bubble plots for correlation between NoV GII detection in wastewater and b GII AGE cases, d total AGE cases, and f outbreaks in each study. (For the forest plots, of concern are the respective combined results within subgroups (GI & GII). Heterogeneity exists in the correlation between NoV GI detection in wastewater and number of total AGE cases (c), using the random effects model; for the bubble plots, which showed the trends presented in data points from each study, colors represented different studies and the size of the bubbles was determined by the weights of each study.)
Fig. 4Temporal distribution of NoV genotypes from winter 2012 to summer 2017