Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 2004, p. 2771-2773, Vol. 42, No. 6
0095-1137/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.42.6.2771-2773.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Virology, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, University of Freiburg, 79008 Freiburg,1 Zentrum der Inneren Medizin, Medizinische Klinik III/Infektiologie, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany,3 Departamento de Microbiologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Universidade de São Paulo, 05508-000 São Paulo, Brazil2
Received 16 January 2004/ Returned for modification 18 February 2004/ Accepted 16 March 2004
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
This feature of coronavirus biology may be relevant for improving its detection in diagnostics. Most RNA viruses can be detected only during the acute initial phase of the disease, on the first few days after disease onset. However, during the early symptomatic phase of SARS only low levels of SARS-CoV have been found. Viral detection in stools and respiratory material eventually peaks at around 10 days after the onset of clinical symptoms, well after virus could be transmitted to other susceptible hosts (1). Therefore, the early detection of SARS-CoV genetic material is crucial for improving SARS control, since patients are able to transmit the virus before it can be detected.
To optimize SARS-CoV detection, we designed a Taqman reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) amplicon targeting the NC gene of SARS-CoV. We used the consensus sequence of the NC gene obtained from an alignment of 17 available complete genome sequences of the SARS-CoV to search for an optimal amplicon with the Primer Express software (Applied Biosystems). We found an optimal Taqman RT amplicon (NC amplicon) amplified by primers NCCORFP (5'-TGCCTCTGCATTCTTTGGA-3') and NCCORRP (5'-TAAGTCAGCCATGTTCCCG-3') and the Taqman probe NCCORP (6-carboxyfluorescein-5'-CACGCATTGGCATGGAAGTCACA-3'-6-carboxy tetramethylrhodamine), hybridizing from nucleotides 29054 to 29122 of the total SARS-CoV sequence (GenBank accession no. AY278741). These NC primers and the Pol gene primers (TMSARS1, TNSARAs2, and TMSARSP1), published by Drosten et al. (1), were compared in end point titrations on a 10-fold dilution range of CoV-RNA extracted from Vero E6 cell culture lysate. They were also tested on fivefold dilution ranges of RNA extracted from stool and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of the index patient from Frankfurt, Germany. Taqman RT-PCR for the Pol assay was performed as described previously (1); the NC assay was performed in 20 µl as follows: 61°C for 20 min, 95°C for 5 min, and 45 cycles of 95°C for 15 s and 60°C for 30 s using the LightCycler RNA Master Hybridization Probes kit (Roche). Cloning of amplicons and RNA transcription were performed as described in reference 7. Cell culture of the SARS-CoV was done as described in reference 1. RNA was extracted from infected Vero E6 cells after 24 h by Trizol extraction (Invitrogen) and from patient material with the Qiamp viral RNA kit (QIAGEN).
To compare the sensitivities of both assays, we cloned each target amplicon into a plasmid and transcribed RNA, which was quantified and diluted into an RNA standard range (109 to 101 RNA molecules). When used to test the respective RNA standards, both the Pol and NC assays had a sensitivity of 104 copies detected (standard correlations [r] = 0.97 and 1, respectively; efficiencies = 0.58 and 1.18, respectively). We determined the limit of detection (LOD) in RNA extracted from cell culture. The Pol assay detected viral RNA down to a dilution of 1:105, whereas the NC assay was sensitive down to a dilution of 1:109 (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Both assays were negative on RNA extracted from uninfected cells. In the RNA extracted from stool, the Pol and NC assays detected viral RNA down to dilutions of 1:5 and 1:3,125, respectively. In the RNA extracted from BALF the Pol and NC assays detected viral RNA down to dilutions of 1:25 and 1:15,625, respectively. In comparison to the Pol assay, the NC assay detected viral RNA at a sensitivity 625 times higher in both patient materials. Both assays were fivefold more sensitive to the RNA extracted from BALF than to the RNA extracted from stool, which may be due to stool inhibitors. The numbers of copies detected at the LOD by the Pol assay were 1.28 x 104 in the cell culture sample, 6.2 x 108/ml of stool, and 4.9 x 108/ml of BALF. The numbers of copies detected at the LOD by the NC assay were 1.28 x104 in the cell culture sample, 3.46 x 108/ml of stool, and 2.89 x 105/ml of BALF.
![]() View larger version (24K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Real-time RT-PCR fluorescence plots. Both the Pol assay (left) and the NC assay (right) used a range of 10-fold dilutions, from 103 to 109, of RNA extracted from Vero E6 cells. The Pol assay detected RNA in the 103 and 104 dilutions, whereas the NC assay detected RNA in 103 to 109 dilutions, possibly because sgRNA molecules produced by transcription of the NC gene are more abundant in infected cells than those produced by transcription of the Pol gene.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. End point titrations of SARS-CoV RNA for the Pol and NC assays
|
The implication for diagnostic testing is that the current RT-PCR assays targeting the Pol gene detect SARS-CoV less efficiently and less sensitively than is possible when targeting the NC gene. The larger amount of NC sgRNA in cells observed here may mean that a stronger signal could be picked up from patient samples containing cells sooner than is currently feasible with the Pol assay, which is in widespread use due to its early introduction soon after the first SARS cases hit Europe and the Americas. As a consequence of our data we suggest that PCR assays targeting the NC gene should be considered a valuable alternative for SARS-CorV diagnostics, especially as only 40 to 50% of patients tested in days 1 to 6 after onset of disease are positive by RT-PCR (J. S. Peiris, http://www.who.int/csr/sars/conference/june_2003/materials/presentations/en/aetiology.pdf, 2003).
We thank Otto Haller for critically reading the manuscript.
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»