This research demonstrates a multiplex digital PCR assay effectively detecting four porcine coronaviruses, indicating high sensitivity and diagnostic specificity.
Porcine enteric coronaviruses (CoVs), including swine acute diarrhea syndrome coronavirus (SADS-CoV), porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), porcine deltacoronavirus (PDCoV), and porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), are major pathogens causing porcine viral diarrhea syndrome (VDS), which brings significant economic losses to the swine industry; distinguishing between these clinically similar viruses has become a serious challenge. We developed a highly specific and interference-resistant porcine CoV multiplex digital PCR (dPCR) assay. The assay exhibited robust anti-interference capabilities, as the concentrations of the four viruses did not affect their accurate quantification. The coefficients of variation (CV%) of intra-batch and inter-batch repeatability for all target viruses were less than 11%. The limit of quantification (LoQ) of this dPCR assay reached 7.5 copies/reaction for each target, and it was one order of magnitude more sensitive than qPCR. The limits of detection (LoD) for SADS-CoV, PEDV, PDCoV, and TGEV were 2.72, 3.00, 3.56, and 3.19 copies/reaction, respectively. A total of 408 known samples were used for validation tests, and the results were highly consistent with the known conditions, showing a compliance rate of 97-100%. The diagnostic specificity (Dsp) of the method was 99-100%. In conclusion, the developed multiplex dPCR assay is highly suitable for early detection and quarantine in four porcine CoVs. The results indicate that this dPCR method is characterized by high specificity, anti-interference capabilities, repeatability, and high sensitivity. It also demonstrates a high compliance rate and diagnostic specificity in sample detection. This multiplex dPCR will contribute to the control of porcine enteric CoV-caused VDS and provide clues for subsequent research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: