Rhinovirus detection

comparison of real-time and conventional PCR

Hayat Dagher, Howard Donninger, Paul Hutchinson, Reena Ghildyal, Philip Bardin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rhinoviruses are important human respiratory viruses and the major causative agents of the common cold. Historically, detection of rhinovirus has been by virus culture and this was significantly improved by the use of PCR assays. Recently real-time PCR was developed but to date there have been no reported comparisons of conventional and real-time PCR assays for detection of rhinovirus. In this study, we first compared real-time PCR (SYBR Green I) to conventional PCR for the detection of rhinovirus in serially diluted standard DNA and rhinovirus stock to determine the limits of detection. Next, assays were compared for sensitivity to detect rhinovirus in cell culture with a known number of infected cells. Finally, the assays were compared using clinical samples known to contain rhinovirus. Real-time PCR was 10-fold more sensitive than conventional PCR to detect rhinovirus in standard DNA and in virus stock and >10-fold more sensitive to detect rhinovirus in cultured cells. Real-time PCR was significantly superior for detection of rhinovirus in patients' nasal aspirates (sensitivity 72% versus 39%, P < 0.05). In summary, we found that real-time PCR was more sensitive than conventional PCR and reduced post-PCR processing. Hence, real-time PCR is suitable for both research and clinical purposes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)113-121
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Virological Methods
Volume117
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Rhinovirus
Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Viruses
Common Cold
DNA Viruses
Nose
Limit of Detection
Cultured Cells
Cell Culture Techniques
Cell Count

Cite this

Dagher, Hayat ; Donninger, Howard ; Hutchinson, Paul ; Ghildyal, Reena ; Bardin, Philip. / Rhinovirus detection : comparison of real-time and conventional PCR. In: Journal of Virological Methods. 2004 ; Vol. 117, No. 2. pp. 113-121.
@article{85843ddf512a4d928e0797f869efec08,
title = "Rhinovirus detection: comparison of real-time and conventional PCR",
abstract = "Rhinoviruses are important human respiratory viruses and the major causative agents of the common cold. Historically, detection of rhinovirus has been by virus culture and this was significantly improved by the use of PCR assays. Recently real-time PCR was developed but to date there have been no reported comparisons of conventional and real-time PCR assays for detection of rhinovirus. In this study, we first compared real-time PCR (SYBR Green I) to conventional PCR for the detection of rhinovirus in serially diluted standard DNA and rhinovirus stock to determine the limits of detection. Next, assays were compared for sensitivity to detect rhinovirus in cell culture with a known number of infected cells. Finally, the assays were compared using clinical samples known to contain rhinovirus. Real-time PCR was 10-fold more sensitive than conventional PCR to detect rhinovirus in standard DNA and in virus stock and >10-fold more sensitive to detect rhinovirus in cultured cells. Real-time PCR was significantly superior for detection of rhinovirus in patients' nasal aspirates (sensitivity 72{\%} versus 39{\%}, P < 0.05). In summary, we found that real-time PCR was more sensitive than conventional PCR and reduced post-PCR processing. Hence, real-time PCR is suitable for both research and clinical purposes.",
keywords = "Common Cold, Flow Cytometry, HeLa Cells, Humans, Nasal Mucosa, Nucleic Acid Denaturation, Picornaviridae Infections, Polymerase Chain Reaction, RNA, Viral, Rhinovirus, Sensitivity and Specificity, Comparative Study, Journal Article",
author = "Hayat Dagher and Howard Donninger and Paul Hutchinson and Reena Ghildyal and Philip Bardin",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jviromet.2004.01.003",
language = "English",
volume = "117",
pages = "113--121",
journal = "Journal of Virological Methods",
issn = "0166-0934",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

Rhinovirus detection : comparison of real-time and conventional PCR. / Dagher, Hayat; Donninger, Howard; Hutchinson, Paul; Ghildyal, Reena; Bardin, Philip.

In: Journal of Virological Methods, Vol. 117, No. 2, 05.2004, p. 113-121.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rhinovirus detection

T2 - comparison of real-time and conventional PCR

AU - Dagher, Hayat

AU - Donninger, Howard

AU - Hutchinson, Paul

AU - Ghildyal, Reena

AU - Bardin, Philip

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - Rhinoviruses are important human respiratory viruses and the major causative agents of the common cold. Historically, detection of rhinovirus has been by virus culture and this was significantly improved by the use of PCR assays. Recently real-time PCR was developed but to date there have been no reported comparisons of conventional and real-time PCR assays for detection of rhinovirus. In this study, we first compared real-time PCR (SYBR Green I) to conventional PCR for the detection of rhinovirus in serially diluted standard DNA and rhinovirus stock to determine the limits of detection. Next, assays were compared for sensitivity to detect rhinovirus in cell culture with a known number of infected cells. Finally, the assays were compared using clinical samples known to contain rhinovirus. Real-time PCR was 10-fold more sensitive than conventional PCR to detect rhinovirus in standard DNA and in virus stock and >10-fold more sensitive to detect rhinovirus in cultured cells. Real-time PCR was significantly superior for detection of rhinovirus in patients' nasal aspirates (sensitivity 72% versus 39%, P < 0.05). In summary, we found that real-time PCR was more sensitive than conventional PCR and reduced post-PCR processing. Hence, real-time PCR is suitable for both research and clinical purposes.

AB - Rhinoviruses are important human respiratory viruses and the major causative agents of the common cold. Historically, detection of rhinovirus has been by virus culture and this was significantly improved by the use of PCR assays. Recently real-time PCR was developed but to date there have been no reported comparisons of conventional and real-time PCR assays for detection of rhinovirus. In this study, we first compared real-time PCR (SYBR Green I) to conventional PCR for the detection of rhinovirus in serially diluted standard DNA and rhinovirus stock to determine the limits of detection. Next, assays were compared for sensitivity to detect rhinovirus in cell culture with a known number of infected cells. Finally, the assays were compared using clinical samples known to contain rhinovirus. Real-time PCR was 10-fold more sensitive than conventional PCR to detect rhinovirus in standard DNA and in virus stock and >10-fold more sensitive to detect rhinovirus in cultured cells. Real-time PCR was significantly superior for detection of rhinovirus in patients' nasal aspirates (sensitivity 72% versus 39%, P < 0.05). In summary, we found that real-time PCR was more sensitive than conventional PCR and reduced post-PCR processing. Hence, real-time PCR is suitable for both research and clinical purposes.

KW - Common Cold

KW - Flow Cytometry

KW - HeLa Cells

KW - Humans

KW - Nasal Mucosa

KW - Nucleic Acid Denaturation

KW - Picornaviridae Infections

KW - Polymerase Chain Reaction

KW - RNA, Viral

KW - Rhinovirus

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - Comparative Study

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.jviromet.2004.01.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jviromet.2004.01.003

M3 - Article

VL - 117

SP - 113

EP - 121

JO - Journal of Virological Methods

JF - Journal of Virological Methods

SN - 0166-0934

IS - 2

ER -