Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31852942›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Sensitivity and specificity of metatranscriptomics as an arbovirus surveillance tool.

Jana Batovska, Peter T Mee, Stacey E Lynch, Tim I Sawbridge, Brendan C Rodoni

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Integrating metagenomics and metatranscriptomics intoThe Journal of general virology · 2026
    Review
  2. Horizons of the Future: Preparedness and Response.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jana BatovskaAgriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia. jana.batovska@agriculture.vic.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0919-568X
Peter T MeeAgriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Stacey E LynchAgriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia. stacey.lynch@agriculture.vic.gov.au.
Tim I SawbridgeAgriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Brendan C RodoniAgriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
La Trobe University · AUAgriculture Victoria · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to identify all the viruses within a sample makes metatranscriptomic sequencing an attractive tool to screen mosquitoes for arboviruses. Practical application of this technique, however, requires a clear understanding of its analytical sensitivity and specificity. To assess this, five dilutions (1:1, 1:20, 1:400, 1:8,000 and 1:160,000) of Ross River virus (RRV) and Umatilla virus (UMAV) isolates were spiked into subsamples of a pool of 100 Culex australicus mosquitoes. The 1:1 dilution represented the viral load of one RRV-infected mosquito in a pool of 100 mosquitoes. The subsamples underwent nucleic acid extraction, mosquito-specific ribosomal RNA depletion, and Illumina HiSeq sequencing. The viral load of the subsamples was also measured using reverse transcription droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR) and quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Metatranscriptomic sequencing detected both RRV and UMAV in the 1:1, 1:20 and 1:400 subsamples. A high specificity was achieved, with 100% of RRV and 99.6% of UMAV assembled contigs correctly identified. Metatranscriptomic sequencing was not as sensitive as RT-qPCR or RT-ddPCR; however, it recovered whole genome information and detected 19 other viruses, including four first detections for Australia. These findings will assist arbovirus surveillance programs in utilising metatranscriptomics in routine surveillance activities to enhance arbovirus detection.

Indexed as

AnimalsArbovirusesAustraliaCulexCulicidaeHumansMetagenomeMosquito VectorsRNA, ViralRoss River virusSensitivity and SpecificityTranscriptomeRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID31852942
PMCPMC6920425
OpenAlexW2995538658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.