4.7 Article

Effects of sample preservation and storage times on the detection of tilapia lake virus (TiLV) RNA in tilapia tissues

Journal

AQUACULTURE
Volume 533, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736240

Keywords

Tilapia lake virus; Preservation; Storage time; Tilapia

Funding

  1. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and the Center for Advanced Studies for Agriculture and Food, Institute for Advanced Studies, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand
  2. National Research University Project of Thailand
  3. Office of the Higher Education Commission, Ministry of Education, Thailand

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that using RNAlater (R) and deep-freezing at -20 degrees C are the best practices for maintaining TiLV genomic RNA, with minimal degradation over a period of 365 days.
Tilapia lake virus (TiLV) is a novel orthomyxo-like virus, and has genomic RNA material that is easily degradable. Hence, proper sample storage and preservation should be applied for accurate diagnostic results. In this study, we investigated various conditions for preserving tilapia tissues for the detection of TiLV. Our results revealed that RNAlater (R) and deep-freezing at -20 degrees C are the best practices to maintain TiLV genomic RNA for subsequent diagnosis. Samples stored in these conditions could maintain TiLV genomic RNA for 365 days with minimal reduction. In contrast, TiLV genomic RNA is substantially degraded in ethanol and on Whatman (R) FTA (R) classic cards with a reduction of TiLV genomic material of 2 logs and up to 3 logs within 30 days of storage, respectively. Besides, all preservation methods showed a difference in the amount of TiLV genomic RNA between the initial day, during, and after 30 days of storage. The benefits of this study can be applied to preserve samples efficiently and to transport samples properly from remote areas to a laboratory that is suitably-equipped for disease examination.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available