Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41200553›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025

Comparison of the recovery of PCR-detectable porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus from filter papers under laboratory conditions.

Betsy Armenta-Leyva, Berenice Munguía-Ramírez, Danyang Zhang, Jianqiang Zhang, Rolf Rauh, Luis G Giménez-Lirola, Jeffrey J Zimmerman

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Betsy Armenta-LeyvaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Berenice Munguía-RamírezDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Danyang ZhangDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Jianqiang ZhangDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Rolf RauhTetracore Inc., Rockville, MD, United States.
Luis G Giménez-LirolaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Jeffrey J ZimmermanDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The need for cost effective surveillance of emerging human and veterinary pathogens has triggered a resurgence in research on environmental sampling methods, a process in which filter paper could play a role. The objective of this research was to compare the recovery of nucleic acids from paper products under laboratory conditions. Methods: In Experiment 1, commercially available paper products (n = 9) were saturated with water (1000 to 3000 µl) and the volume of decanted liquid measured and analyzed (linear regression). In Experiment 2, 4 paper products from Experiment 1 were evaluated for the release of RT-qPCR-detectable porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RNA and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) RNA. Specifically, products were inoculated with PRRSV and PEDV, dried, subjected to 9 elution conditions (3 elution buffers × 3 soaking times), and tested by RT-qPCR. Thereafter, results were normalized and re-expressed as efficiency-standardized Cqs (ECqs). Results and Discussion: In Experiment 1, significant differences in recovery were observed across products and volumes (p < 0.05), with paper products 3 and 4 releasing the highest volumes. In Experiment 2, linear regression analysis showed that paper type, elution buffer, virus dilution, and their interactions affected viral RNA recovery (p < 0.05). AUC analysis showed no significant difference in PRRSV RNA detection between buffer-specific positive controls and product 3 eluted with lysis buffer or water. Similarly, no difference was detected in PEDV RNA detection between the positive control eluted with lysis buffer and products 3 and 4 eluted with lysis buffer. These results demonstrated that the choice of filter paper and the procedures used for viral RNA detection significantly affect target recovery.

Indexed as

Porcine epidemic diarrhea virusPorcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virusReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSpecimen HandlingAnimalsFiltrationPorcine Reproductive and Respiratory SyndromeRNA, ViralSwineRNA, Viralenvironmental samplingfilter paperPEDVPRRSVRT-qPCR

Identifiers

PMID41200553
PMCPMC12586060

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.