Cargando…

Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites

Background: With the emergence of the microbiome as an important factor in health and disease in the respiratory tract standardised, validated techniques are required for its accurate characterisation. No standardised technique has been reported specifically for viral sampling in the sinonasal passa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goggin, Rachel K., Bennett, Catherine A., Bassiouni, Ahmed, Bialasiewicz, Seweryn, Vreugde, Sarah, Wormald, Peter-John, Psaltis, Alkis J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6156342/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30283747
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2018.00334
_version_ 1783358080138870784
author Goggin, Rachel K.
Bennett, Catherine A.
Bassiouni, Ahmed
Bialasiewicz, Seweryn
Vreugde, Sarah
Wormald, Peter-John
Psaltis, Alkis J.
author_facet Goggin, Rachel K.
Bennett, Catherine A.
Bassiouni, Ahmed
Bialasiewicz, Seweryn
Vreugde, Sarah
Wormald, Peter-John
Psaltis, Alkis J.
author_sort Goggin, Rachel K.
collection PubMed
description Background: With the emergence of the microbiome as an important factor in health and disease in the respiratory tract standardised, validated techniques are required for its accurate characterisation. No standardised technique has been reported specifically for viral sampling in the sinonasal passages. Aim: To optimise viral sampling techniques from the sinonasal cavity. Methods: Sterile cytology brushes were used under endoscopic guidance to sample the sinonasal mucosa at time of endoscopic sinus surgery at both the middle and inferior meatuses (MM and IM). DNA and RNA were extracted from the samples and underwent PCR or RT-PCR testing, respectively, for a panel of 15 common upper respiratory tract viruses. Results: Twenty-four adult patients were recruited for this study. 18/24 (75%) patients were positive for virus in at least one site, while 8/24 (33%) were positive for virus at both sites. The mean number of viruses identified at the two sites were similar (0.875 ± 0.899 at the MM vs. 0.750 ± 1.032 at the IM). 6/24 (25%) of patients showed no virus at either site, while 3/24 (12.5%) demonstrated the same viral species at both sites. Conclusion: Although the number of viruses present at different sites with the nasal cavity are similar, discord exists in the viral species between sites. It is therefore recommended that both sites are sampled in the clinical and research setting better to characterise the viral species within the nasal cavity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6156342
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61563422018-10-03 Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites Goggin, Rachel K. Bennett, Catherine A. Bassiouni, Ahmed Bialasiewicz, Seweryn Vreugde, Sarah Wormald, Peter-John Psaltis, Alkis J. Front Cell Infect Microbiol Cellular and Infection Microbiology Background: With the emergence of the microbiome as an important factor in health and disease in the respiratory tract standardised, validated techniques are required for its accurate characterisation. No standardised technique has been reported specifically for viral sampling in the sinonasal passages. Aim: To optimise viral sampling techniques from the sinonasal cavity. Methods: Sterile cytology brushes were used under endoscopic guidance to sample the sinonasal mucosa at time of endoscopic sinus surgery at both the middle and inferior meatuses (MM and IM). DNA and RNA were extracted from the samples and underwent PCR or RT-PCR testing, respectively, for a panel of 15 common upper respiratory tract viruses. Results: Twenty-four adult patients were recruited for this study. 18/24 (75%) patients were positive for virus in at least one site, while 8/24 (33%) were positive for virus at both sites. The mean number of viruses identified at the two sites were similar (0.875 ± 0.899 at the MM vs. 0.750 ± 1.032 at the IM). 6/24 (25%) of patients showed no virus at either site, while 3/24 (12.5%) demonstrated the same viral species at both sites. Conclusion: Although the number of viruses present at different sites with the nasal cavity are similar, discord exists in the viral species between sites. It is therefore recommended that both sites are sampled in the clinical and research setting better to characterise the viral species within the nasal cavity. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6156342/ /pubmed/30283747 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2018.00334 Text en Copyright © 2018 Goggin, Bennett, Bassiouni, Bialasiewicz, Vreugde, Wormald and Psaltis. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Goggin, Rachel K.
Bennett, Catherine A.
Bassiouni, Ahmed
Bialasiewicz, Seweryn
Vreugde, Sarah
Wormald, Peter-John
Psaltis, Alkis J.
Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites
title Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites
title_full Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites
title_fullStr Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites
title_short Comparative Viral Sampling in the Sinonasal Passages; Different Viruses at Different Sites
title_sort comparative viral sampling in the sinonasal passages; different viruses at different sites
topic Cellular and Infection Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6156342/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30283747
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2018.00334
work_keys_str_mv AT gogginrachelk comparativeviralsamplinginthesinonasalpassagesdifferentvirusesatdifferentsites
AT bennettcatherinea comparativeviralsamplinginthesinonasalpassagesdifferentvirusesatdifferentsites
AT bassiouniahmed comparativeviralsamplinginthesinonasalpassagesdifferentvirusesatdifferentsites
AT bialasiewiczseweryn comparativeviralsamplinginthesinonasalpassagesdifferentvirusesatdifferentsites
AT vreugdesarah comparativeviralsamplinginthesinonasalpassagesdifferentvirusesatdifferentsites
AT wormaldpeterjohn comparativeviralsamplinginthesinonasalpassagesdifferentvirusesatdifferentsites
AT psaltisalkisj comparativeviralsamplinginthesinonasalpassagesdifferentvirusesatdifferentsites