The detection and differentiation of canine respiratory pathogens using oligonucleotide microarrays

Development of a three-panel multiplex real-time PCR assay for simultaneous detection of nine canine respiratory pathogens

Infectious respiratory disease is one of the most common diseases in dogs worldwide. Several bacterial and viral pathogens can serve as causative agents of canine infectious respiratory disease (CIRD), including Mycoplasma cynos, Mycoplasma canis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine adenovirus type 2 (CAdV-2), canine herpesvirus 1 (CHV-1), canine parainfluenza virus (CPIV), canine distemper virus (CDV), canine influenza virus (CIA) and canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV). Since these organisms cause similar clinical symptoms, disease diagnosis based on symptoms alone can be difficult. Therefore, a quick and accurate test is necessary to rapidly identify the presence and relative concentrations of causative CIRD agents. In this study, a multiplex real-time PCR panel assay was developed and composed of three subpanels for detection of the aforementioned pathogens. Correlation coefficients (R²) were >0.993 for all singleplex and multiplex real-time PCR assays with the exception of one that was 0.988; PCR amplification efficiencies (E) were between 92.1% and 107.8% for plasmid DNA, and 90.6-103.9% for RNA templates. In comparing singular and multiplex PCR assays, the three multiplex reactions generated similar R² and E values to those by corresponding singular reactions, suggesting that multiplexing did not interfere with the detection sensitivities. The limit of detection (LOD) of the multiplex real-time PCR for DNA templates was 5, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 4, 24 and 10 copies per microliter for M. cynos, M. canis, B. brochiseptica, CAdV-2, CHV-1, CPIV, CDV, CIA and CRCoV, respectively; and 3, 2, 6, 17, 4 and 8 copies per microliter for CAdV-2, CHV-1, CPIV, CDV, CIA and CRCoV, respectively, when RNA templates were used for the four RNA viruses. No cross-detection was observed among the nine pathogens. For the 740 clinical samples tested, the newly designed PCR assay showed higher diagnostic sensitivity compared to an older panel assay; pathogen identities from selected samples positive by the new assay but undetected by the older assay were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Our data showed that the new assay has higher diagnostic sensitivity while maintaining the assay's specificity, as compared to the older version of the panel assay.