Cargando…
The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods
Korea is located within the East Asian-Australian flyway of wild migratory birds during the fall and winter seasons. Consequently, the likelihood of introduction of numerous subtypes and pathotypes of the Avian influenza (AI) virus to Korea has been thought to be very high. In the current study, we...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Veterinary Science
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6769331/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31565899 http://dx.doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2019.20.e56 |
_version_ | 1783455219341852672 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Gang-San Kim, Tae-Sik Son, Joo-Sung Lai, Van Dam Park, Jung-Eun Wang, Seung-Jun Jheong, Weon-Hwa Mo, In-Pil |
author_facet | Kim, Gang-San Kim, Tae-Sik Son, Joo-Sung Lai, Van Dam Park, Jung-Eun Wang, Seung-Jun Jheong, Weon-Hwa Mo, In-Pil |
author_sort | Kim, Gang-San |
collection | PubMed |
description | Korea is located within the East Asian-Australian flyway of wild migratory birds during the fall and winter seasons. Consequently, the likelihood of introduction of numerous subtypes and pathotypes of the Avian influenza (AI) virus to Korea has been thought to be very high. In the current study, we surveyed wild bird feces for the presence of AI virus that had been introduced to Korea between September 2017 and February 2018. To identify and characterize the AI virus, we employed commonly used methods, namely, virus isolation (VI) via egg inoculation, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), conventional RT-PCR (cRT-PCR) and a newly developed next generation sequencing (NGS) approach. In this study, 124 out of 11,145 fresh samples of wild migratory birds tested were rRT-PCR positive; only 52.0% of VI positive samples were determined as positive by rRT-PCR from fecal supernatant. Fifty AI virus specimens were isolated from fresh fecal samples and typed. The cRT-PCR subtyping results mostly coincided with the NGS results, although NGS detected the presence of 11 HA genes and four NA genes that were not detected by cRT-PCR. NGS analysis confirmed that 12% of the identified viruses were mixed-subtypes which were not detected by cRT-PCR. Prevention of the occurrence of AI virus requires a workflow for rapid and accurate virus detection and verification. However, conventional methods of detection have some limitations. Therefore, different methods should be combined for optimal surveillance, and further studies are needed in aspect of the introduction and application of new methods such as NGS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6769331 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | The Korean Society of Veterinary Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67693312019-10-09 The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods Kim, Gang-San Kim, Tae-Sik Son, Joo-Sung Lai, Van Dam Park, Jung-Eun Wang, Seung-Jun Jheong, Weon-Hwa Mo, In-Pil J Vet Sci Original Article Korea is located within the East Asian-Australian flyway of wild migratory birds during the fall and winter seasons. Consequently, the likelihood of introduction of numerous subtypes and pathotypes of the Avian influenza (AI) virus to Korea has been thought to be very high. In the current study, we surveyed wild bird feces for the presence of AI virus that had been introduced to Korea between September 2017 and February 2018. To identify and characterize the AI virus, we employed commonly used methods, namely, virus isolation (VI) via egg inoculation, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), conventional RT-PCR (cRT-PCR) and a newly developed next generation sequencing (NGS) approach. In this study, 124 out of 11,145 fresh samples of wild migratory birds tested were rRT-PCR positive; only 52.0% of VI positive samples were determined as positive by rRT-PCR from fecal supernatant. Fifty AI virus specimens were isolated from fresh fecal samples and typed. The cRT-PCR subtyping results mostly coincided with the NGS results, although NGS detected the presence of 11 HA genes and four NA genes that were not detected by cRT-PCR. NGS analysis confirmed that 12% of the identified viruses were mixed-subtypes which were not detected by cRT-PCR. Prevention of the occurrence of AI virus requires a workflow for rapid and accurate virus detection and verification. However, conventional methods of detection have some limitations. Therefore, different methods should be combined for optimal surveillance, and further studies are needed in aspect of the introduction and application of new methods such as NGS. The Korean Society of Veterinary Science 2019-09 2019-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6769331/ /pubmed/31565899 http://dx.doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2019.20.e56 Text en © 2019 The Korean Society of Veterinary Science https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Kim, Gang-San Kim, Tae-Sik Son, Joo-Sung Lai, Van Dam Park, Jung-Eun Wang, Seung-Jun Jheong, Weon-Hwa Mo, In-Pil The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods |
title | The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods |
title_full | The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods |
title_fullStr | The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods |
title_full_unstemmed | The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods |
title_short | The difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods |
title_sort | difference of detection rate of avian influenza virus in the wild bird surveillance using various methods |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6769331/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31565899 http://dx.doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2019.20.e56 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimgangsan thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT kimtaesik thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT sonjoosung thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT laivandam thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT parkjungeun thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT wangseungjun thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT jheongweonhwa thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT moinpil thedifferenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT kimgangsan differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT kimtaesik differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT sonjoosung differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT laivandam differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT parkjungeun differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT wangseungjun differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT jheongweonhwa differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods AT moinpil differenceofdetectionrateofavianinfluenzavirusinthewildbirdsurveillanceusingvariousmethods |