Key result
Primer set A resulted in a 28.3% untypable rate and misidentified 69.2% of G9 strains as G3, compared to a 12.3% untypable rate and accurate identification with primer set B.
Observational (n=422)
Yes
Absolute Event Rate: 28.3% vs 12.3%
Older rotavirus genotyping primers (Set A) frequently misidentify genotype G9 as G3 and have higher untypable rates compared to newer primers (Set B), highlighting the need for periodic primer re-evaluation.
Legacy primers risk distorting rotavirus surveillance data; leaves open optimal primer selection for evolving strains.
Reverse transcription (RT)-PCR is now the standard method for typing group A rotaviruses (RVA) to monitor the circulating genotypes in a population. Selection of primers that can accurately type the circulating genotypes is crucial in the context of vaccine introduction and correctly interpreting the impact of vaccination on strain distribution. To our knowledge this study is the first report from Asia of misidentification of genotype G9 as G3 due to a primer-template mismatch. We tested two published G-genotype specific primers sets, designed by Gouvea and colleagues (Set A) and Iturriza-Gomara and colleagues (Set B) on RVA from Hong Kong and Sri Lanka. Among 52 rotaviruses typed as G3 by set A primers, 36 (69.2%) were identified as G9 by nucleotide sequencing and set B primers. Moreover, of 300 rotaviruses tested, 28.3% were untypable by set A primers whereas only 12.3% were untypable by set B primers. Our findings reinforce the need to periodically monitor the primers used for RVA genotyping.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mitui et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Rotavirus infection (n=422). Primer set A (Gouvea et al.) vs. Primer set B (Iturriza-Gomara et al.) was evaluated on Untypable rate of rotavirus strains. Primer set A resulted in a 28.3% untypable rate and misidentified 69.2% of G9 strains as G3, compared to a 12.3% untypable rate and accurate identification with primer set B.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: