ArticleViruses2020
Evaluation of Viral RNA Recovery Methods in Vectors by Metagenomic Sequencing.
Article in Viruses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive Review on Viral RNA Extraction Strategies for Enhanced Molecular Diagnostics.Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification and characterization of viral genomes in vectors including ticks and mosquitoes positive for pathogens of great public health concern using metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) has challenges. One such challenge is the ability to efficiently recover viral RNA which is typically dependent on sample processing. We evaluated the quantitative effect of six different extraction methods in recovering viral RNA in vectors using negative tick homogenates spiked with serial dilutions of tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) and surrogate Langat virus (LGTV). Evaluation was performed using qPCR and mNGS. Sensitivity and proof of concept of optimal method was tested using naturally positive TBEV tick homogenates and positive dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus mosquito homogenates. The amount of observed viral genome copies, percentage of mapped reads, and genome coverage varied among different extractions methods. The developed Method 5 gave a 120.8-, 46-, 2.5-, 22.4-, and 9.9-fold increase in the number of viral reads mapping to the expected pathogen in comparison to Method 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, respectively. Our developed Method 5 termed ROVIV (Recovery of Viruses in Vectors) greatly improved viral RNA recovery and identification in vectors using mNGS. Therefore, it may be a more sensitive method for use in arbovirus surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.