Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2026
EPA Method 1615. Measurement of Enterovirus and Norovirus Occurrence in Water by Culture and RT-qPCR. Part III. Virus Detection by RT-qPCR
Published on: January 16, 2016
Microchip, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and culture methods to detect enterovirus infection in
Lon-Yen Tsao1, Chi-Yung Lin, Ya-Yan Yu
1Department of Pediatrics, Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan.
Background:
Enterovirus infection usually presents with mild and self-limited illness in children. However, Enterovirus type 71 can be characterized by neurotropism and may cause severe illness or even sudden death. Early detection of the virus will allow a physician to provide intensive or aggressive intervention. The purpose of the present study was to compare sensitivity of two innovative laboratory methods, that is, the DR.EV microchip method (DR. Chip Biotechnology, Shin-Tsu, Taiwan) and the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method following conventional virus culture in detecting enterovirus infection in pediatric patients with herpangina or hand-foot-mouth disease.
Methods:
A total of 87 children (age range: 1-8 years) were enrolled because of typical clinical findings of herpangina and hand-foot-mouth disease. Two hundred children selected after a careful clinical history review and physical examinations, were included as controls. All of these children had at least throat swab and rectal swab specimens taken and tested for evidence of enterovirus infection by microchip, RT-PCR and virus culture methods. In addition, 21 patients also had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens taken to test for possible central nervous system involvement.
Result:
The test results obtained from the 200 healthy kindergarten children were all negative for enteroviral infection by these three methods. Among the 87 test patients, the positive rates for throat swab, rectal swab and CSF by DR.EV chip, RT-PCR and virus culture were 71%, 68%, and 45% (throat swab); 66%, 61%, and 33% (rectal swab); and 52%, 29%, and 5% (CSF), respectively. There was no significant difference in the positive rates between the DR.EV chip and the RT-PCR methods (P > 0.1) on all types of specimens. However, statistically significant differences in positive rates were noted between the DR.EV chip and the conventional virus culture methods on all types of specimens (P < 0.001). Sensitivity of the microchip, RT-PCR and virus culture methods, was 82%, 72%, and 53%, respectively.
Conclusion:
The DR.EV chip method yielded a statistically higher positive rate and faster test results than the conventional viral culture method.
