4.4 Article

Comparison of Two Concentration Methods for the Molecular Detection of Enteroviruses in Raw and Treated Sewage

Journal

CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 1, Pages 12-18

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00284-015-0909-4

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human enteric viruses are a major causative agent of emerging waterborne diseases and constitute a serious public health concern. Environmental contamination occurs through discharge of waste materials from infected persons. Methods for viral detection should be developed to detect low infective dose of enteric viruses in environment. In this study, we aimed at comparing two concentration methods for the detection of naturally occurring enteroviruses in raw and treated sewage. In the first method, polyethylene glycol is used to concentrate viral particles from the collected samples. The second method is based on ultracentrifugation of viral particles at high speed (110,000xg). Genomes of enteroviruses were quantified by the quantitative real-time PCR method in raw and treated sewage samples. PEG-based method yielded higher genomic copies of enteric viruses (with an average of 5.9 log(10) genomic copies/100 mL) when applied to raw sewage samples. While the ultracentrifugation assay in the second method decreases genomic copies number (with an average of 5.4 log(10) genomic copies/100 mL). The recovery differences between the two methods were not significant when applied to clean samples (treated sewage). This could be explained by the presence of inhibitors, which interfere with qRT-PCR, in less quantity comparatively to raw sewage. PEG-based method would be more accurate for samples with high-organic matter load. This report emphasizes the importance of matrices nature on the recovery of enteroviruses from sewage samples. This should be taken into consideration for establishing standardized virological assays to ensure the virological quality control of discharged water in environment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available