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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Published
2025-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1677338
Primary Topic
Animal Virus Infections Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Berenice Munguía-Ramírez, Luis G. Giménez‐Lirola, Danyang Zhang, Jeffrey J. Zimmerman et al.
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Animal Virus Infections Studies
article

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

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

Abstract

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.

Frontiers in Cellular and Infection MicrobiologyVol. 15
Iowa State University (US), Tetracore (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Animal Virus Infections Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.