Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of Rodent Infectious Agent Detection by Exhaust Dust Testing and Traditional Sentinel Testing Using Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction.

Improved diagnostic capabilities and a desire to reduce or refine the use of animals as soiled bedding sentinels (SBS) have driven interest in developing the use of PCR-based testing methods, such as exhaust dust testing (EDT), for routine rodent health surveillance. We compared the absolute and quantitative PCR results from EDT filters with SBS mice by routine screening via a panel of 19 infectious agents including agents known to be excluded or present in the colony. In this study, EDT and SBS were compared at days 0, 90, and 180 in 3 facilities ( n = 12 rooms) with animals housed on IVC racks ( n = 19 double-sided and 23 single-sided racks). All racks were negative for excluded agents ( n = 15 agents) during the study. The bacterial agent Helicobacter spp. was consistently detected on EDT filters while less consistently detected via SBS. EDT filters detected Corynebacterium bovis better than SBS in areas where the agent was present. EDT filters and SBS mice tested for murine norovirus (MNV) demonstrated agreement for positive tests by both PCR and serology. For rodent chaphamaparvovirus-1 (RCHPV-1) we compared EDT to urine and feces from SBS. Six cages of SBS were positive for RCHPV-1 by fecal PCR with 5 out of 6 testing positive on urine, while only 3 out of 6 EDT filters tested positive. Since real-time fluorogenic PCR was used for testing, relative PCR copy numbers for each positive finding were evaluated to estimate organism load at the rack level. Copy numbers allowed for further characterization of agent presence within a colony. Furthermore, we compared copy numbers with cage census for MNV and Helicobacter spp., which was positively correlated for EDT testing but not for SBS. Overall, our results demonstrate that EDT's ability to detect many commonly excluded agents is comparable to or better than SBS.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app