OBJECTIVE: To design and evaluate a molecular diagnostic tool for detection and identification of all currently recognized and potentially future emergent CoVs from the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily.
STUDY DESIGN AND RESULTS: We designed a semi-nested, reverse transcription RT-PCR assay based upon 38 published genome sequences of human and animal CoVs. We evaluated this assay with 14 human and animal CoVs and 11 other non-CoV respiratory viruses. Through sequencing the assay's target amplicon, the assay correctly identified each of the CoVs; no cross-reactivity with 11 common respiratory viruses was observed. The limits of detection ranged from 4 to 4 × 102 copies/reaction, depending on the CoV species tested. To assess the assay's clinical performance, we tested a large panel of previously studied specimens: 192 human respiratory specimens from pneumonia patients, 5 clinical specimens from COVID-19 patients, 81 poultry oral secretion specimens, 109 pig slurry specimens, and 31 aerosol samples from a live bird market. The amplicons of all RT-PCR-positive samples were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Our assay performed well with all tested specimens across all sample types.
CONCLUSIONS: This assay can be used for detection and identification of all previously recognized CoVs, including SARS-CoV-2, and potentially any emergent CoVs in the Orthocoronavirinae subfamily.
Methods: Specimens were studied for evidence of adenovirus (AdV), enterovirus (EV) and coronavirus (CoV) with panspecies gel-based nested PCR/RT-PCR assays. Gene sequences of specimens positive by panspecies assays were sequenced and studied with the NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool software.
Results: There was considerable discordance between real-time and conventional molecular methods. The real-time AdV assay found a positivity of 10.4%; however, the AdV panspecies assay detected a positivity of 12.4% and the conventional AdV-Hexon assay detected a positivity of 19.6%. The CoV and EV panspecies assays similarly detected more positive specimens than the real-time assays, with a positivity of 7.8% by the CoV panspecies assay versus 4.2% by rRT-PCR, and 8.0% by the EV panspecies assay versus 1.0% by rRT-PCR. We were not able to ascertain virus viability in this setting. While most discordance was likely due to assay sensitivity for previously described human viruses, two novel, possible zoonotic AdV were detected.
Conclusions: The observed differences in the two modes of amplification suggest that where a problem with sensitivity is suspected, real-time assay results might be supplemented with panspecies conventional PCR/RT-PCR assays.