J Virol Methods . Comparative Assessment of Lyophilized and wet Reagents for the Molecular Detection of H5N1 High Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus and H9N2 Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus

[tetano]

J Virol Methods


. 2023 Jan 30;114686.
doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2023.114686. Online ahead of print.
Comparative Assessment of Lyophilized and wet Reagents for the Molecular Detection of H5N1 High Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus and H9N2 Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus


Agathe Auer ¹ , Valentina Panzarin ² , Isabella Monne ² , Marika Crimaudo ² , Angelique Angot ³ , Morgane Gourlaouen ³ , Charles E Lamien ⁴ , Giovanni Cattoli ⁴



Affiliations

• PMID: 36731632
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2023.114686

Abstract

Global surveillance for Avian Influenza Virus (AIV) in birds is essential for assessing public and animal health risks and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is among the official methods recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) to confirm the presence of the virus in laboratory specimens. Yet, in low-resource setting laboratories, the detection of AIV can be hampered by the need to maintain a cold chain for wet reagents. In such cases, alternatives should be ready to maximize surveillance capacities and mining of AIV. Therefore, we compared two lyophilized RT-qPCR reagents (1st - 5× CAPITAL™ 1-Step qRT-PCR Probe Reagent, lyophilized kit, and 2nd - Qscript lyo 1-step-kit) to the WOAH recommended protocol by Nagy et al., 2020 using QuantiTect Probe RT-PCR-kit as wet reagent. The comparative study panel comprised 102 RNA samples from two AIV subtypes, i.e. H5 and H9 subtypes. Despite that the wet reagent exhibited the lowest limit of detection (LOD) compared to the two lyophilized reagents, the inter-assay agreement was substantial between the 1st lyophilized reagent and the comparator with 95.1% of shared positive results. Cohen's-kappa was fair between the 2nd lyophilized reagent and the comparator with 75.5% of shared positive results. Agreement using the statistical test Bland-Altman was good for samples with Cq-values < 25 for all reagents, revealing discrepancies when the viral load is low. This trend was especially evident while using the 2nd lyophilized reagent. Similar trends were obtained using the same lyophilized reagents but following the protocol by Heine et al., 2015 with AgPath-ID™ One-Step RT-PCR as a comparator, showing that Cq-values increase using lyophilized reagents but correlate strongly with the wet reagent. Further, inter-assay agreement between reagents improved when the protocol from Heine et al., 2015 was applied, suggesting a higher resilience to chemistry changes allowing easier reagents interchangeability.

Keywords: AIV; Agreement of molecular diagnostic assays; limit of detection.