Key result
Novel AC-ELISA detects Porcine rotavirus-A with ~92% sensitivity compared to RT-qPCR.
Why the study?
Porcine rotavirus-A causes significant diarrhea-related losses in piglets, necessitating a rapid, specific, and sensitive detection method for surveillance and control.
Does AC-ELISA accurately detect Group A Porcine Rotavirus in porcine fecal samples compared to RT-PCR and RT-qPCR?
Does AC-ELISA accurately detect Group A Porcine Rotavirus in porcine fecal samples compared to RT-PCR and RT-qPCR?
Absolute Event Rate: 11.2% vs 12.2%
The developed AC-ELISA is a rapid, highly specific, and sensitive method for detecting Group A Porcine Rotavirus, with performance comparable to RT-PCR.
Supports AC-ELISA as a specific alternative to RT-qPCR for porcine rotavirus; leaves open broader veterinary application without additional validation.
Porcine rotavirus-A (PoRVA) is one of the common causes of mild to severe dehydrating diarrhea, leading to losses in weaning and postweaning piglets. A rapid, highly specific, and sensitive antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (AC-ELISA) was developed for detection of PoRVA, by using VP6 (a highly conserved and antigenic protein of group-A rotavirus)-directed rabbit polyclonal antibodies (capture antibody) and murine monoclonal antibodies (detector antibody). The detection limit of AC-ELISA was found to be equal to that of conventional reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR; about 102.5 TCID50/mL). For validation of the in-house AC-ELISA, 295 porcine fecal/diarrhea samples, collected from different provinces of China, were evaluated and compared with conventional RT-PCR and TaqMan RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR). The sensitivity and specificity of this in-house AC-ELISA relative to RT-qPCR were found to be 91.67% and 100%, respectively, with the strong agreement (kappa = 0.972) between these two techniques. Total detection rate with AC-ELISA, conventional RT-PCR, and RT-qPCR were found to be 11.2%, 11.5%, and 12.2%, respectively, without any statistical significant difference. Moreover, AC-ELISA failed to detect any cross-reactivity with porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, transmissible gastroenteritis virus, pseudorabies virus, and porcine circovirus-2. These results suggested that our developed method was rapid, highly specific, and sensitive, which may help in large-scale surveillance, timely detection, and preventive control of rotavirus infection in porcine farms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Memon et al. (2017) studied Porcine rotavirus-A (n=295). Antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (AC-ELISA) vs. Conventional RT-PCR and TaqMan RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) was evaluated on Detection of Porcine rotavirus-A. A newly developed AC-ELISA for detecting Porcine rotavirus-A demonstrated 91.67% sensitivity and 100% specificity relative to RT-qPCR, with an overall detection rate of 11.2% vs 12.2%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: