Why the study?
Does the choice of cell culture dependent versus independent enterovirus detection algorithm impact the perceived diversity of enterovirus types in stool samples from children with acute flaccid paralysis?
Does the choice of cell culture dependent versus independent enterovirus detection algorithm impact the perceived diversity of enterovirus types in stool samples from children with acute flaccid paralysis?
Both cell culture dependent and independent protocols bias the perception of enterovirus diversity, indicating that both methods should be harmonized to increase diagnostic sensitivity.
Method choice may bias enterovirus diversity estimates in AFP stool; leaves open optimal harmonized detection algorithms.
This study was designed to compare both the cell culture dependent and independent enterovirus detection algorithms recommended by the WHO and assess how either might impact our perception of the diversity of enterovirus types present in a sample. Sixteen paired samples (16 isolates from RD cell culture and their corresponding stool suspension, i.e., 32 samples) from AFP cases in Nigeria were analyzed in this study. All the samples were subjected to RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, the WHO recommended RT-snPCR, and its modification. Amplicons were sequenced and strains identified. Enterovirus diversity was the same between the isolates and fecal suspension for the control and five of the samples. It was, however, different for the remaining 10 (62.5%) samples. Nine (CV-B4, E6, E7, E13, E14, E19, E29, EV-B75, and EV-B77) and five (CV-A1, CV-A11, CV-A13, EV-C99, and PV2) EV-B and EV-C types, respectively, were detected. Particularly, E19 and EV-B75 were only recovered from the isolates while E14, EV-B77, CV-A11, and CV-A13 were only recovered from fecal suspension. Both the cell culture dependent and independent protocols bias our perception of the diversity of enterovirus types present in a sample. Hence, effort should be directed at harmonizing both for increased sensitivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adeniji et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: