Evaluation of a Direct Immunofluorescent Assay and/or Conjunctival Cytology for Detection of Canine Distemper Virus Antigen

Novel high-coverage primers for detection of canine morbillivirus by end-point and real-time RT-PCR assays

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is a major threat to domestic dogs and wildlife worldwide. Molecular assays are the most sensitive and specific tests to diagnose the disease, however, the high CDV genetic variability may compromise laboratory diagnosis. Herein, we designed a high-coverage primer set for end-point (RT-PCR) and real-time (RT-qPCR) for CDV detection. Initially, we collected 194 complete/near-complete CDV genomes (GenBank) and analyzed them for highly conserved regions for primer design. We then assessed the in silico coverage, analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic performance of RT-PCR/RT-qPCR reactions based on our primers. Furthermore, the coverage of our primers, as well as their analytical sensitivity and diagnostic performance, were compared to a commonly used primer set for CDV detection (named PP-I). Our forward (F) and reverse (R) primers fully matched 100 % (194/194) and 99 % (192/194) of the analyzed sequences, whereas the PP-I F and R primers fully matched 15 % (29/194) and 9 % (18/194) sequences, respectively. The detection limit of our RT-PCR and RT-qPCR was equivalent to that of PP-I primers (0.001 TCID50/mL). Out of 70 clinical samples tested, 38 were positive by our RT-PCR/RT-qPCR assays, whereas reactions with primers PP-I failed to detect 9/28 (32 %) positive samples selected for comparison purposes. In addition, our assays did not amplify other canine viruses associated with respiratory and neurological diseases: canine adenovirus 2, canine parainfluenza virus 2, canine herpesvirus 1 and rabies virus. Overall, we describe a high-coverage primer set for CDV detection, which represents an attractive tool for laboratory diagnosis of canine distemper.

Comparison of five conjunctival cytology sampling methods in normal cat eyes

Background and Aim

Ophthalmological cytology is an easy, informative, rapid, and commonly-used low-cost diagnostic method, but sample collection and preparation are essential steps in obtaining qualitative material for cytological evaluation. This study aimed to evaluate cytological smear quality and animal discomfort after single or three serial conjunctival scrapings in normal cat eyes using five sampling methods.

Materials and Methods

Five cytology methods (mini brush, cotton swab, soft brush, Kimura spatula, and cytobrush) were used in 50 eyes (10 with one scraping and 10 with three consecutive scrapings for a particular method) in complete 25 clinically and ophthalmologically healthy cats of different ages, sexes, and breeds. Ocular discomfort (1 = eyes open, 2 = partially open, and 3 = eyes squinted), average cell count (ten 10× fields), cell distribution (ten 100× fields: 0 = all cells are aggregated, 1 = <25% cells are evenly distributed, 2 = 25-50% cells are evenly distributed, and 3 = >50% cells are evenly distributed) and sample quality - aggregates (two cells and more), mucus, and artifacts (1+ = fair, 2+ = moderate, and 3+ = high amount) were evaluated.

Results

The discomfort scores for the mini brush, cotton swab, soft brush, spatula, and cytobrush after a single and three scrapings were 1, 1, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average cell counts ± standard deviation after one and three scrapings were as follows: mini brush 11.15 ± 13.87 and 7.55 ± 12.7; cotton swab 7.17 ± 10.20 and 10.00 ± 16.44; soft brush 19.45 ± 22.22 and 8.55 ± 13.82; spatula 17.15 ± 32.94 and 13.85 ± 22.01; and cytobrush 13.35 ± 18.33 and 13.05 ± 19.29, respectively; the cell distributions were 3, 3, 3, 1, and 1 after single scraping and 3, 3, 2, 0, and 2 after three scrapings, respectively.

Conclusion

The mini brush was the optimal method since it produced less discomfort, fewer artifacts, and the highest smear quality. Spatula smears were difficult to evaluate due to material thickness. The highest mucus and aggregate amounts were found in cytobrush, cotton swab, and soft brush samples. In this study, small number of samples per each sampling method is a major limitation.

Detection of canine distemper virus in cerebrospinal fluid, whole blood and mucosal specimens of dogs with distemper using RT-PCR and immunochromatographic assays

Background

Accurate diagnosis of canine distemper (CD), a highly contagious and acute viral disease, cannot be made solely based on clinical signs and haematological findings, but serological and molecular methods compatible with clinical signs are also required. The type of sample and method of tissue sampling are also very important. Sometimes in chronic cases, the canine distemper virus (CDV) may not be detected in blood and conjunctival specimens but can be detected in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the suitability of CSF samples with whole blood and conjunctival samples in the detection of CDV.

Methods

The CDV was detected in CSF, whole blood and mucosal specimens in 20 dogs with obvious neurological with or without systemic signs congruous with CD by RT‐PCR and rapid immunochromatographic (IC) antigen test kit assays.

Results

Rapid kit results were positive for mucosal swabs in 10 cases (50%) and for CSF in 17 cases (85%); RT‐PCR results from whole blood were positive in 11 cases (55%) and from CSF in 16 cases (80%).

Conclusions

Our results revealed that dogs with neurological signs showing simultaneous or recent systemic symptoms, whole blood, CSF and mucosal swabs are suitable for the diagnosis of CDV by RT‐PCR and rapid IC antigen test kits, but dogs with neurological symptoms that are systematically asymptomatic or have had systemic signs for a long time, whole blood and mucosal swabs are not good samples while CSF is a good one.

Molecular and serological surveys of canine distemper virus: A meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies

BACKGROUND

Canine morbillivirus (canine distemper virus, CDV) persists as a serious threat to the health of domestic dogs and wildlife. Although studies have been conducted on the frequency and risk factors associated with CDV infection, there are no comprehensive data on the current epidemiological magnitude in the domestic dog population at regional and national levels. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional study and included our results in a meta-analysis to summarize and combine available data on the frequency and potential risk factors associated with CDV infection.

METHODS

For the cross-sectional study, biological samples from dogs suspected to have canine distemper (CD) were collected and screened for viral RNA. Briefly, the PRISMA protocol was used for the meta-analysis, and data analyses were performed using STATA IC 13.1 software.

RESULTS

CDV RNA was detected in 34% (48/141) of dogs suspected to have CD. Following our meta-analysis, 53 studies were selected for a total of 11,527 dogs. Overall, the pooled frequency of CDV positivity based on molecular and serological results were 33% (95% CI: 23-43) and 46% (95% CI: 36-57), respectively. The pooled subgroup analyses of clinical signs, types of biological samples, diagnostic methods and dog lifestyle had a wide range of CDV positivity (range 8-75%). Free-ranging dogs (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.05-1.97), dogs >24 months old (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.1-3) and unvaccinated dogs (OR: 2.92, 95% CI: 1.26-6.77) were found to be positively associated with CDV infection. In contrast, dogs <12 months old (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.20-0.64) and dogs with a complete anti-CDV vaccination (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.05-0.59) had a negative association.

CONCLUSION

Considering the high frequency of CDV positivity associated with almost all the variables analyzed in dogs, it is necessary to immediately and continuously plan mitigation strategies to reduce the CDV prevalence, especially in determined endemic localities.