ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Development and validation of nanoplate-based RT-dPCR assay for canine respiratory coronavirus detection in various clinical samples.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCanine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV) is a major contributor to the canine infectious respiratory disease complex (CIRDC). Despite its widespread prevalence, molecular assays for CRCoV detection remain limited. Additionally, the efficiency and accuracy of detection can vary depending on the type of clinical sample used, such as nasal swabs (NS), oropharyngeal swabs (OS), and rectal swabs (RS). To address these challenges, we developed a nanoplate-based reverse transcription digital polymerase chain reaction (RT-dPCR) method for detecting the spike gene of CRCoV in various clinical samples.
resultsThe RT-dPCR assay demonstrated consistent repeatability and reproducibility, ensuring reliable results. With a detection limit of 1.83 copies/µL, the RT-dPCR assay exhibited 100-fold greater sensitivity than probe-based reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). It showed no cross-reactivity with other common CIRDC-associated viruses or coronaviruses, confirming its high specificity for CRCoV. The assay was further validated using 162 clinical swab samples (NS, OS, and RS) collected from both healthy dogs and those with respiratory distress. The RT-dPCR assay showed a higher overall positivity rate for CRCoV compared to RT-qPCR, with the most notable difference observed in rectal swabs (P < 0.05), where RT-dPCR detected CRCoV in 53.7% of samples compared to 22.22% by RT-qPCR.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the RT-dPCR assay provided high sensitivity for detecting low viral loads across various sample types, making it a valuable tool for precise CRCoV detection. In contrast, RT-qPCR remains valuable for its broader detection range and suitability in initial screening. Both techniques proved to be versatile tools that can contribute to advancing CRCoV research and improving clinical diagnostics.
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.