Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32320441›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Development and validation of a portable, point-of-care canine distemper virus qPCR test.

Ania Tomaszewicz Brown, Denise McAloose, Paul P Calle, Angelika Auer, Annika Posautz, Sally Slavinski, Robin Brennan, Chris Walzer, Tracie A Seimon

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ania Tomaszewicz BrownWildlife Conservation Society, Zoological Health Program, Bronx, New York, United States of America.
Denise McAlooseWildlife Conservation Society, Zoological Health Program, Bronx, New York, United States of America.
Paul P CalleWildlife Conservation Society, Zoological Health Program, Bronx, New York, United States of America.
Angelika AuerInstitute of Virology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Annika PosautzResearch Institute of Wildlife Ecology (FIWI), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Sally SlavinskiNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Queens, New York, United States of America.
Robin BrennanAnimal Care Centers of New York, New York, New York, United States of America.
Chris WalzerResearch Institute of Wildlife Ecology (FIWI), University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0437-5147
Tracie A SeimonWildlife Conservation Society, Zoological Health Program, Bronx, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3658-1364
Wildlife Conservation Society · USUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene · USThe Schwarzman Animal Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is a multi-host pathogen that can cause significant mortality in domestic, wild terrestrial and marine mammals. It is a major conservation threat in some endangered species. Infection can result in severe respiratory disease and fatal encephalitis. Diagnosis and disease monitoring in wildlife, and differentiation of CDV from rabies (a life-threatening zoonotic disease that can produce similar neurologic signs), would benefit from the availability of a portable, point-of-care (POC) diagnostic test. We therefore developed a quantitative RT-PCR assay for CDV using shelf-stable, lyophilized reagents and target-specific primers and probes for use with the handheld Biomeme two3™ qPCR thermocycler. Biomeme's extraction methodology, lyophilized reagents, and thermocycler were compared to our standard laboratory-based methods to assess sensitivity, efficiency and overall test performance. Results using a positive control plasmid for CDV showed comparable sensitivity (detection of 50 copies) and PCR efficiency between the two platforms, and CDV detection was similar between platforms when tested using a modified live CDV vaccine. Significantly higher Ct values (average Ct = 5.1 cycles) were observed using the Biomeme platform on known CDV positive animal samples. CDV detection using the Biomeme platform was similar in 25 of 26 samples from suspect CDV cases when compared to standard virology laboratory testing. One false positive was observed that was negative upon retest. The Biomeme methodology can be adapted for detection of specific targets, and this portable technology saves time by eliminating the need for local or international sample transport for laboratory-based diagnostics. However, results of our testing suggest that decreased diagnostic sensitivity (higher Ct values) relative to laboratory-based methods was observed using animal samples, so careful validation and optimization are essential. Portable qPCR platforms can empower biologists and wildlife health professionals in remote and low-resource settings, which will greatly improve our understanding of CDV disease ecology and associated conservation threats in wildlife.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildAustriaDistemperDistemper Virus, CanineFreezingHairNosePoint-of-Care SystemsRaccoonsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificitySkinUnited StatesRNA, ViralVaccines, Attenuated

Identifiers

PMID32320441
PMCPMC7176111
OpenAlexW3016379412

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.