Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, July 2007, p. 2260-2262, Vol. 45, No. 7
0095-1137/07/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/JCM.00848-07
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Department of Virology, Eijkman-Winkler Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands,1 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Disease, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands,2 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Intensive Care, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Lundlaan 6, 3584 EA Utrecht, The Netherlands,3 Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, St. Elisabeth Hospital Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022 GC Tilburg, The Netherlands4
Received 21 April 2007/ Returned for modification 26 April 2007/ Accepted 7 May 2007
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
For this purpose, respiratory specimens from hospitalized pediatric and adult patients with respiratory symptoms were collected during one respiratory season (December 2004 through May 2005). Follow-up samples (taken within 4 weeks after a first sample) were excluded. Samples were divided into three aliquots. One aliquot of the samples from children was used for DIF assays to detect RSVs A and B, IVs A and B, PIVs 1 to 3, and AdV using Imagen kits (DaKo, Glostrup, Denmark) according to the manufacturer's protocol. DIF was not performed for samples from adults, because it has been shown to have a very low sensitivity in an adult population (2). One aliquot of the samples was used for immediate viral culture of RSV, IVs, PIVs 1 to 3, and AdV on LLC-MK2, RD, R-HELA, and HEp-2C cells. Cultures were examined every other day for the development of a cytopathologic effect for 14 days, and positive cultures were confirmed by DIF with monoclonal antibodies specific for RSV A or B; IV A or B; PIV 1, 2, or 3; or AdV (DaKo, Glostrup, Denmark). Finally, an aliquot of the samples was used to extract viral nucleic acids using the MagNA Pure LC total nucleic acid isolation kit (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) as described previously (6). Subsequently, cDNA was synthesized using MultiScribe reverse transcriptase and random hexamers (both from Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Detection of viruses was performed using parallel real-time PCR assays for RSVs A and B (8) and IVs A and B as previously described (7, 10). In addition, in-house real-time PCR methods were developed for the detection of PIVs 1 to 4 and AdVs using Primer Express (Applied Biosystems). Conserved target regions were identified using BLAST (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast). Sequences of the primers and probes used are summarized in Table 1. Real-time PCR procedures were performed as described previously (6).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Primers and probes used for real-time PCR detection
|
For children, viral culture identified viruses in 25 (14%) samples, whereas DIF detected viruses in 35 (19%) samples. Thirty-eight (21%) samples were inadequate for analysis by DIF because of the absence of intact cells. The combination of viral culture and DIF detected viruses in 43 (24%) samples. A total of 78 (43%) samples were positive by real-time PCR; in these samples, 89 viruses were identified. Mixed viral infections were detected by real-time PCR only (seven [3.9%] double infections and two [1.1%] triple infections).
In adults, viral culture identified respiratory viruses in only three (3.5%) samples. Respiratory viruses were detected in 31 (36%) samples by real-time PCR; no mixed viral infections were detected.
The diagnostic yields of conventional methods compared to that of real-time PCR as the reference method are presented in Table 2. The sensitivities of conventional methods (culture and DIF) in diagnosing the pediatric population were 0.46 (confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.53) for RSVs, 0.44 (CI, 0.37 to 0.52) for IVs, 0.63 (CI, 0.55 to 0.70) for PIVs, and 0.24 (CI, 0.17 to 0.30) for AdVs. The sensitivities of conventional methods (viral culture) for detection in adults appeared to be much lower (Table 2) and were 0.00 (CI, 0.00 to 0.00) for RSVs, 0.11 (CI, 0.04 to 0.18) for IVs, 0.00 (CI, 0.00 to 0.00) for PIVs, and 1.00 (CI, 1.00 to 1.00) for AdVs. The specificities of conventional methods for the different respiratory viruses were 0.98 to 1.00 for children and 1.00 for adults.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Comparison of the results of conventional diagnostic tests and real-time PCR
|
In the present study, we showed that real-time PCR for RSV, IV, PIV, and AdV increased the diagnostic yields for these viruses substantially in clinical practice, in comparison with those of conventional diagnostic tests. However, some limitations of our study deserve further discussion. First, there is no gold standard for the detection of respiratory viruses to which both conventional tests and real-time PCR can be compared. This is a problem encountered in all studies evaluating real-time PCR (3, 4). Second, we did not use blind antibody fluorescence staining for viral culture and therefore may have missed positive cultures without cytopathogenic effects.
The findings of our study are in accordance with those of previous reports. van Kraaij et al. identified RSV, IV, and PIV as present in 2% of 52 episodes of respiratory tract infection in adults after stem cell transplantation, whereas real-time PCR was positive for 12%, 4%, and 6% of the samples, respectively (9). Templeton et al. (5) identified RSV, IV, and/or PIV in 19% of 358 respiratory samples by viral culture, compared with 24% of samples by real-time PCR (5). In the present study, we found an association between CT values and conventional tests being positive. This was in agreement with the work of Bredius et al., who found CT values of 27 to 42 for samples positive only by real-time PCR versus CT values of 18 to 22 for culture-positive samples (1).
Apart from being more sensitive than conventional methods, real-time PCR is also able to detect microorganisms that are difficult to culture, microorganisms for which no (commercial) DIF assay is available, or microorganisms that cannot be cultured at all. At our center, real-time PCR is routinely performed for rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, human metapneumovirus, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. These agents were found, respectively, in 47, 23, 13, and 5 pediatric samples and in 16, 6, 1, and 1 adult samples (unpublished data), increasing the detection rate further to 69% and 57% for children and adults, respectively.
In conclusion, real-time PCR considerably increases the diagnostic yields for respiratory viruses from patients admitted with respiratory symptoms within a clinically relevant time frame. This allows clinicians to initiate optimal patient management and to initiate adequate (future) use of antiviral therapy and optimal infection control.
Published ahead of print on 16 May 2007. ![]()
|
|
|---|
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»