ArticleFood and environmental virology2024
Assessment of Hepatitis E Virus RNA Detection in Meat Samples: Optimization of Pre-analytical Conditions.
Article in Food and environmental virology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance evaluation of methods for detecting enteric viruses in meat products.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026Article
- Detection of Infectious Hepatitis E Virus in Retail Pork Pâté After Optimization of Extraction Protocols.Viruses · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is primarily transmitted via the fecal-oral route and is considered an anthropozoonosis. Genotypes with zoonotic potential (mainly HEV-3 and HEV-4) can be transmitted through the consumption of raw or undercooked pork, wild boar, deer meat, or processed products. This study aims to explore methodologies for processing meat samples to establish a protocol for HEV detection in meat. The analysis of pre-analytical conditions involved comparing homogenization with PBS versus TRIzol, comparing tissue disruption methods (ultra-turrax versus mortar and pestle), and assessing nucleic acid extraction techniques (spin columns and magnetic beads) across three types of artificially contaminated meat matrices: pork, salmon (fish-meat), and salami. Each test included a process control virus (PP7) and an HEV transcript. Molecular detection was performed via RT-qPCR. Results indicated that TRIzol provided better recovery rates for homogenization, while spin columns were the most effective option for RNA extraction. Both the ultra-turrax homogenizer and the mortar-pestle methods were effective for pork and fish-meat homogenization, while the use of the UT yielded superior results for salami. HEV recovery rates were 36.7%, 26.3%, and 34.1% for salami, salmon, and pork meat, respectively. In conclusion, we reached a simple and reliable protocol for the detection of RNA-HEV from three meat matrices. This method, which includes homogenization with TRIzol, mechanical tissue disruption, and RNA extraction using spin columns followed by real-time PCR, can be applied in future studies to evaluate HEV prevalence in food sources and contribute to the discussion about HEV detection methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39580366What 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.