Cargando…

Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens

Fecal samples submitted for virus examination over July 1990 to June 1991 from children <3 years of age were examined by electron microscopy (EM), virus culture (VC), and enzyme immunoassay [EIA, group-reactive and adenovirus (Ad) 40/41 specific; Cambridge BioScience] to compare the detection rat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahluwalia, Gurmukh S., Scott-Taylor, Tim H., Klisko, Brian, Hammond, Gregory W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Published by Elsevier Inc. 1994
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7135712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7924208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0732-8893(94)90086-8
_version_ 1783518118155386880
author Ahluwalia, Gurmukh S.
Scott-Taylor, Tim H.
Klisko, Brian
Hammond, Gregory W.
author_facet Ahluwalia, Gurmukh S.
Scott-Taylor, Tim H.
Klisko, Brian
Hammond, Gregory W.
author_sort Ahluwalia, Gurmukh S.
collection PubMed
description Fecal samples submitted for virus examination over July 1990 to June 1991 from children <3 years of age were examined by electron microscopy (EM), virus culture (VC), and enzyme immunoassay [EIA, group-reactive and adenovirus (Ad) 40/41 specific; Cambridge BioScience] to compare the detection rate of adenovirus from pediatric fecal specimens. Ad isolates of serotypes 1–7 grown in HEp-2 or primary rhesus monkey kidney cells were identified by neutralization. Graham 293 cell cultures were used only when specimens were found to be positive for Ad by EM, type-specific Ad40/41 EIA, and for isolates not identified by neutralization. Ads grown in 293 cells were identified by DNA restriction endonuclease analysis. Of the 1187 specimens examined, 105 (9%) were found to be positive for Ad. VC detected 93, while 12 additional positives were detected by EM or EIA. The relative sensitivity of VC, EIA, and EM for the 105 specimens was 89% (93), 45% (47), and 35% (37), respectively. Among the 105 positive specimens, enteric Ad, nonenteric Ad, and untypeable Ad were 28% (29), 65% (68), and 7% (8), respectively. Of 37 EM positives, 62% (23) were enteric Ad; 27% (10) were nonenteric including serotypes 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 31, with 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, and 1 isolates of each type positive, respectively; and 11% (4) were detectable only by EM. Five isolates were identified as variant of Ad 2(3), Ad 3(1) and Ad 31(1). Over a 1-year period, a single Ad41 variant strain was the most frequently detected enteric Ad in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. For maximum detection rates of Ad viruses in pediatric fecal specimens, a combination of EM, VC, and EIA is required, but group-reactive EIA, or EM followed by Ad40/41-specific EIA of initial positives, are the most direct and efficient methods for enteric Ad detection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7135712
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 1994
publisher Published by Elsevier Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71357122020-04-08 Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens Ahluwalia, Gurmukh S. Scott-Taylor, Tim H. Klisko, Brian Hammond, Gregory W. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Virology Fecal samples submitted for virus examination over July 1990 to June 1991 from children <3 years of age were examined by electron microscopy (EM), virus culture (VC), and enzyme immunoassay [EIA, group-reactive and adenovirus (Ad) 40/41 specific; Cambridge BioScience] to compare the detection rate of adenovirus from pediatric fecal specimens. Ad isolates of serotypes 1–7 grown in HEp-2 or primary rhesus monkey kidney cells were identified by neutralization. Graham 293 cell cultures were used only when specimens were found to be positive for Ad by EM, type-specific Ad40/41 EIA, and for isolates not identified by neutralization. Ads grown in 293 cells were identified by DNA restriction endonuclease analysis. Of the 1187 specimens examined, 105 (9%) were found to be positive for Ad. VC detected 93, while 12 additional positives were detected by EM or EIA. The relative sensitivity of VC, EIA, and EM for the 105 specimens was 89% (93), 45% (47), and 35% (37), respectively. Among the 105 positive specimens, enteric Ad, nonenteric Ad, and untypeable Ad were 28% (29), 65% (68), and 7% (8), respectively. Of 37 EM positives, 62% (23) were enteric Ad; 27% (10) were nonenteric including serotypes 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, and 31, with 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, and 1 isolates of each type positive, respectively; and 11% (4) were detectable only by EM. Five isolates were identified as variant of Ad 2(3), Ad 3(1) and Ad 31(1). Over a 1-year period, a single Ad41 variant strain was the most frequently detected enteric Ad in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. For maximum detection rates of Ad viruses in pediatric fecal specimens, a combination of EM, VC, and EIA is required, but group-reactive EIA, or EM followed by Ad40/41-specific EIA of initial positives, are the most direct and efficient methods for enteric Ad detection. Published by Elsevier Inc. 1994-03 2002-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7135712/ /pubmed/7924208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0732-8893(94)90086-8 Text en Copyright © 1994 Published by Elsevier Inc. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Virology
Ahluwalia, Gurmukh S.
Scott-Taylor, Tim H.
Klisko, Brian
Hammond, Gregory W.
Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens
title Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens
title_full Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens
title_fullStr Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens
title_short Comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens
title_sort comparison of detection methods for adenovirus from enteric clinical specimens
topic Virology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7135712/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7924208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0732-8893(94)90086-8
work_keys_str_mv AT ahluwaliagurmukhs comparisonofdetectionmethodsforadenovirusfromentericclinicalspecimens
AT scotttaylortimh comparisonofdetectionmethodsforadenovirusfromentericclinicalspecimens
AT kliskobrian comparisonofdetectionmethodsforadenovirusfromentericclinicalspecimens
AT hammondgregoryw comparisonofdetectionmethodsforadenovirusfromentericclinicalspecimens