Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

13 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Identification of rhabdoviral sequences in oropharyngeal swabs from German and Danish bats.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In the frame of active lyssavirus surveillance in bats, oropharyngeal swabs from German (N?=?2297) and Danish (N?=?134) insectivorous bats were investigated using a newly developed generic pan-lyssavirus real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR). FINDINGS: In total, 15 RT-qPCR positive swabs were detected. Remarkably, sequencing of positive samples did not confirm the presence of bat associated lyssaviruses but revealed nine distinct novel rhabdovirus-related sequences. CONCLUSIONS: Several novel rhabdovirus-related sequences were detected both in German and Danish insectivorous bats. The results also prove that the novel generic pan-lyssavirus RT-qPCR offers a very broad detection range that allows the collection of further valuable data concerning the broad and complex diversity within the family Rhabdoviridae.

SUBMITTER: Fischer M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4247638 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Identification of rhabdoviral sequences in oropharyngeal swabs from German and Danish bats.

Fischer Melina M Freuling Conrad M CM Müller Thomas T Schatz Juliane J Rasmussen Thomas Bruun TB Chriel Mariann M Balkema-Buschmann Anne A Beer Martin M Hoffmann Bernd B

Virology journal 20141125

<h4>Background</h4>In the frame of active lyssavirus surveillance in bats, oropharyngeal swabs from German (N = 2297) and Danish (N = 134) insectivorous bats were investigated using a newly developed generic pan-lyssavirus real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR).<h4>Findings</h4>In total, 15 RT-qPCR positive swabs were detected. Remarkably, sequencing of positive samples did not confirm the presence of bat associated lyssaviruses but revealed nine distinct novel rhabdovirus-related sequenc ...[more]

PMID: 25420461

Similar Datasets

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 quantification from oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and naso-oropharyngeal swabs: A cross-sectional study

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10998208 | biostudies-literature

Coronavirus in Danish bats

Project description:Detection and characterization of distinct alphacoronaviruses in five different bat species in Denmark

| PRJEB28001 | ENA

Stool and oropharyngeal swabs

Project description:Long-term effects of ciprofloxacin treatment on the gastrointestinal and oropharyngeal microbiome are more pronounced after longer antibiotic courses

| PRJNA1074135 | ENA

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Anterior Nasal Vestibular Swabs vs. Oropharyngeal Swabs.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 testing in specimens collected from the anterior nasal vestibules of COVID-19 patients.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was performed on 30 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center from March 14, 2020 to March 21, 2020. Paired specimens were collected from both the anterior nasal vestibule and the oropharynx from all patients. All specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays.ResultsOf the 30 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 17 patients (56.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 when oropharyngeal specimens were used, while 20 patients (66.7%) tested positive when nasal swab specimens were used. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity between the two methods.ConclusionsRespiratory swabs collected from the nasal vestibule offer a less invasive alternative to oropharyngeal swabs for specimen collection in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and have adequate sensitivity.

| S-EPMC8293915 | biostudies-literature

SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine, blood, anal swabs, and oropharyngeal swabs specimens.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ribonucleic acid (RNA) in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and correlated positive results with clinical findings.MethodsPatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were included in this study. Patients' demographic and clinical data were recorded. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine and blood specimens, and anal and oropharyngeal swabs. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT04279782, 19 February, 2020).ResultsSARS-CoV-2 RNA was present in all four specimen types, though not all specimen types were positive simultaneously. The presence of viral RNA was not necessarily predictive of clinical symptoms, for example, the presence of viral RNA in the urine did not necessarily predict urinary tract symptoms.ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 can infect multiple systems, including the urinary tract. Testing different specimen types may be useful for monitoring disease changes and progression, and for establishing a prognosis.

| S-EPMC7264521 | biostudies-literature

Coronavirus in Danish bats - part 2

Project description:Detection and characterization of distinct alphacoronaviruses in five different bat species in Denmark - part 2

| PRJEB28437 | ENA

Coronavirus in Danish bats - part 3

Project description:Detection and characterization of distinct alphacoronaviruses in five different bat species in Denmark - part 3

| PRJEB28438 | ENA

Proper Procedures for Performing Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8015770 | biostudies-literature

Nasopharyngeal Swabs Are More Sensitive Than Oropharyngeal Swabs for COVID-19 Diagnosis and Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 Load.

Project description:Objective: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) is an essential method for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management. It is not clear how detection rate, sensitivity, and the risk of exposure for medical providers differ in two sampling methods. Methods: In this prospective study, 120 paired NPS and OPS specimens were collected from 120 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in swabs were detected by real-time RT-PCR. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate, sensitivity, and viral load were analyzed with regards NPS and OPS. Sampling discomfort reported by patients was evaluated. Results: The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was significantly higher for NPS [46.7% (56/120)] than OPS [10.0% (12/120)] (P < 0.001). The sensitivity of NPS was also significantly higher than that of OPS (P < 0.001). At the time of sampling, the time of detectable SARS-CoV-2 had a longer median duration (25.0 vs. 20.5 days, respectively) and a longer maximum duration (41 vs. 39 days, respectively) in NPS than OPS. The mean cycle threshold (Ct) value of NPS (37.8, 95% CI: 37.0-38.6) was significantly lower than that of OPS (39.4, 95% CI: 38.9-39.8) by 1.6 (95% CI 1.0-2.2, P < 0.001), indicating that the SARS-CoV-2 load was significantly higher in NPS specimens than OPS. Patient discomfort was low in both sampling methods. During NPS sampling, patients were significantly less likely to have nausea and vomit. Conclusions: NPS had significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 detection rate, sensitivity, and viral load than OPS. NPS could reduce droplets production during swabs. NPS should be recommended for diagnosing COVID-19 and monitoring SARS-CoV-2 load. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number: ChiCTR2000029883.

| S-EPMC7314917 | biostudies-literature

Performance of Saliva, Oropharyngeal Swabs, and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Detection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Project description:Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity. We systematically reviewed the literature to understand the performance of alternative sample types compared to NP swabs. We systematically searched PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv (last retrieval 1 October 2020) for comparative studies of alternative specimen types (saliva, oropharyngeal [OP], and nasal [NS] swabs) versus NP swabs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). A logistic-normal random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate % positive alternative-specimen, % positive NP, and % dual positives overall and in subgroups. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess bias. From 1,253 unique citations, we identified 25 saliva, 11 NS, 6 OP, and 4 OP/NS studies meeting inclusion criteria. Three specimen types captured lower % positives (NS [82%, 95% CI: 73 to 90%], OP [84%, 95% CI: 57 to 100%], and saliva [88%, 95% CI: 81 to 93%]) than NP swabs, while combined OP/NS matched NP performance (97%, 95% CI: 90 to 100%). Absence of RNA extraction (saliva) and utilization of a more sensitive NAAT (NS) substantially decreased alternative-specimen yield of positive samples. NP swabs remain the gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, although alternative specimens are promising. Much remains unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and population (pediatric versus adult, late versus early in disease course), such that head-to head studies of sampling strategies are urgently needed.

| S-EPMC8091856 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data