Cargando…

Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards

Six different biosample collection cards, often collectively referred to as FTA (Flinders Technology Associates) cards, were compared for their ability to inactivate viruses and stabilize viral nucleic acid for molecular testing. The cards were tested with bluetongue virus, foot-and-mouth disease vi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Keck, Hanna, Eschbaumer, Michael, Beer, Martin, Hoffmann, Bernd
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9697902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36366491
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v14112392
_version_ 1784838683649638400
author Keck, Hanna
Eschbaumer, Michael
Beer, Martin
Hoffmann, Bernd
author_facet Keck, Hanna
Eschbaumer, Michael
Beer, Martin
Hoffmann, Bernd
author_sort Keck, Hanna
collection PubMed
description Six different biosample collection cards, often collectively referred to as FTA (Flinders Technology Associates) cards, were compared for their ability to inactivate viruses and stabilize viral nucleic acid for molecular testing. The cards were tested with bluetongue virus, foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), small ruminant morbillivirus (peste des petits ruminants virus), and lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV), encompassing non-enveloped and enveloped representatives of viruses with double-stranded and single-stranded RNA genomes, as well as an enveloped DNA virus. The cards were loaded with virus-containing cell culture supernatant and tested after one day, one week, and one month. The inactivation of the RNA viruses was successful for the majority of the cards and filters. Most of them completely inactivated the viruses within one day or one week at the latest, but the inactivation of LSDV presented a greater challenge. Three of the six cards inactivated LSDV within one day, but the others did not achieve this even after an incubation period of 30 days. Differences between the cards were also evident in the stabilization of nucleic acid. The amount of detectable viral genome on the cards remained approximately constant for all viruses and cards over an incubation period of one month. With some cards, however, a bigger loss of detectable nucleic acid compared with a directly extracted sample was observed. Using FMDV, it was confirmed that the material applied to the cards was sufficiently conserved to allow detailed molecular characterization by sequencing. Furthermore, it was possible to successfully recover infectious FMDV by chemical transfection from some cards, confirming the preservation of full-length RNAs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9697902
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96979022022-11-26 Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards Keck, Hanna Eschbaumer, Michael Beer, Martin Hoffmann, Bernd Viruses Article Six different biosample collection cards, often collectively referred to as FTA (Flinders Technology Associates) cards, were compared for their ability to inactivate viruses and stabilize viral nucleic acid for molecular testing. The cards were tested with bluetongue virus, foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV), small ruminant morbillivirus (peste des petits ruminants virus), and lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV), encompassing non-enveloped and enveloped representatives of viruses with double-stranded and single-stranded RNA genomes, as well as an enveloped DNA virus. The cards were loaded with virus-containing cell culture supernatant and tested after one day, one week, and one month. The inactivation of the RNA viruses was successful for the majority of the cards and filters. Most of them completely inactivated the viruses within one day or one week at the latest, but the inactivation of LSDV presented a greater challenge. Three of the six cards inactivated LSDV within one day, but the others did not achieve this even after an incubation period of 30 days. Differences between the cards were also evident in the stabilization of nucleic acid. The amount of detectable viral genome on the cards remained approximately constant for all viruses and cards over an incubation period of one month. With some cards, however, a bigger loss of detectable nucleic acid compared with a directly extracted sample was observed. Using FMDV, it was confirmed that the material applied to the cards was sufficiently conserved to allow detailed molecular characterization by sequencing. Furthermore, it was possible to successfully recover infectious FMDV by chemical transfection from some cards, confirming the preservation of full-length RNAs. MDPI 2022-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9697902/ /pubmed/36366491 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v14112392 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Keck, Hanna
Eschbaumer, Michael
Beer, Martin
Hoffmann, Bernd
Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards
title Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards
title_full Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards
title_fullStr Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards
title_short Comparison of Biosafety and Diagnostic Utility of Biosample Collection Cards
title_sort comparison of biosafety and diagnostic utility of biosample collection cards
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9697902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36366491
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v14112392
work_keys_str_mv AT keckhanna comparisonofbiosafetyanddiagnosticutilityofbiosamplecollectioncards
AT eschbaumermichael comparisonofbiosafetyanddiagnosticutilityofbiosamplecollectioncards
AT beermartin comparisonofbiosafetyanddiagnosticutilityofbiosamplecollectioncards
AT hoffmannbernd comparisonofbiosafetyanddiagnosticutilityofbiosamplecollectioncards