This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Other Versions of this Article: AEM.01501-07v1 74/1/32    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kurth, A. Articles by Nitsche, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kurth, A. Articles by Nitsche, A. Agricola Articles by Kurth, A. Articles by Nitsche, A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2008, p. 32-37, Vol. 74, No. 1
0099-2240/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AEM.01501-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Orthopoxvirus Detection in Environmental Specimens during Suspected Bioterror Attacks: Inhibitory Influences of Common Household Products

Center for Biological Safety, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany,¹ Queensland Paediatric Infectious Disease Laboratory, SASVRC, Royal Children's Hospital, and CMVC, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia²

Received 4 July 2007/ Accepted 15 October 2007

After terrorists attacked the United States in 2001, the appearance of letters and other objects containing powdery substances with unknown potentials for biological threat focused attention on the speed, sensitivity, and reliability of diagnostic methods. This study summarizes the abilities and limitations of real-time PCR, electron microscopy (EM), and virus isolation when used to detect potential bioweapons. In particular, we investigated the inhibitory influences of different common household products present in environmental specimens on PCR yield, EM detection, and virus isolation. We used vaccinia virus as a model for orthopoxviruses by spiking it into specimens. In the second part of the study, we describe modifications of diagnostic methods to overcome inhibitory effects. A variety of PCR amplification enhancers, DNA extraction protocols, and applications of internal controls were evaluated to improve diagnostic simplicity, speed, and reliability. As a result, we strongly recommend using at least two different frontline techniques in parallel, e.g., EM and PCR. A positive result obtained by any one of these techniques should be followed by a biological method to confirm the putative diagnosis. Confirmatory methods include virus isolation followed by an agent-specific immunofluorescence assay to confirm the presence of replication-competent particles.

Published ahead of print on 26 October 2007.