Premium
Comparison of three diagnostic techniques for detection of rotavirus and coronavirus in calf faeces in Australia
Author(s) -
Izzo MM,
Kirkland PD,
Gu X,
Lele Y,
Gunn AA,
House JK
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
australian veterinary journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.382
H-Index - 59
eISSN - 1751-0813
pISSN - 0005-0423
DOI - 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00891.x
Subject(s) - rotavirus , coronavirus , feces , virology , dipstick , population , biology , covid-19 , microbiology and biotechnology , medicine , virus , urine , biochemistry , disease , environmental health , infectious disease (medical specialty)
Objective Compare real‐time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT‐PCR), a commercially available enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and lateral flow immunochromatography assay (LAT) for the detection of rotavirus and coronavirus in faecal samples collected from diarrhoeic calves. Design Prospective survey. Method Samples were tested at two separate facilities using a commercial ELISA and an in‐house qRT‐PCR. Simple logistic regression was performed to examine the relationship between the two tests. A subset of samples was screened using qRT‐PCR, ELISA and a commercial LAT dipstick (132 faecal samples were tested for coronavirus and 122 samples for rotavirus). Results Of the 586 samples tested, 131 (22.39%) and 468 (79.86%) were positive for coronavirus and group A rotavirus, respectively, using qRT‐PCR. The number of samples positive on ELISA for coronavirus and rotavirus was 73 (12.46%) and 225 (38.40%), respectively. Using LAT, 30 (22.73%) and 43 (35.35%) samples were positive for coronavirus and rotavirus, respectively. Simple linear regression revealed a statistically significant (P < 0.05) but weak (r 2 =−0.07 and −0.40) correlation between the rotavirus/coronavirus qRT‐PCR and ELISA, respectively. There was also poor agreement between the LAT and qRT‐PCR assays. Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of the commercial ELISA and LAT assays evaluated in this study were low compared with qRT‐PCR. The low positive and negative predictive values of the assays suggests that they were of limited diagnostic benefit in the population sampled.