Background  Avian influenza (AI) caused by H7 AI viruses (AIVs) of both low pathogenicity (LP) and high pathogenicity (HP) are notifiable poultry diseases. Objectives  Design and validate two RealTime reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactions (RRT PCRs) for Eurasian H7 AIV detection and pathotyping. Methods  The H7 RRT PCRs amplified within the (i) HA2 and (ii) cleavage site CS regions of the haemagglutinin gene. Both were validated against 65 H7 AIVs, 57 non‐H7 AIVs and 259 poultry swabs in comparison to M gene (AI generic) RRT PCR and virus isolation (VI). An additional 38 swabs and 20 tissue specimens extended validation against M gene RRT PCR. Results  Both H7 RRT PCRs amplified all 61 Eurasian lineage H7 AIVs and none of 57 non‐H7 AIVs. A total of 297 poultry swabs were used to determine diagnostic sensitivity and specificity relative to M gene RRT PCR, sensitivity was 95·4% and 64·6% for the HA2 and CS RRT PCRs respectively, and specificity 97·9% and 99·6% respectively. The H7 HA2 RRT PCR was more sensitive than VI. This was emphasized by analysis of 37 swabs from turkeys infected experimentally with HPAI H7N1 virus sampled at 24 hours post‐inoculation and LPAI H7N1 chicken infections sampled at 40–64 hours. Although less sensitive, usefulness of the H7 CS RRT PCR was confirmed by the correct molecular pathotyping for all 61 Eurasian lineage H7 AIVs tested. Conclusions  The high sensitivity of H7 HA2 RRT PCR confirms its suitability for use in poultry surveillance and disease diagnosis. H7 CS RRT PCR provides an opportunity for rapid pathotyping of H7 AIVs.

Ferrets were experimentally inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related coronavirus 2) to assess infection dynamics and host response. During the resulting subclinical infection, viral RNA was monitored between 2 and 21 days post-inoculation (dpi), and reached a peak in the upper respiratory cavity between 4 and 6 dpi. Viral genomic sequence analysis in samples from three animals identified the Y453F nucleotide substitution relative to the inoculum. Viral RNA was also detected in environmental samples, specifically in swabs of ferret fur. Microscopy analysis revealed viral protein and RNA in upper respiratory tract tissues, notably in cells of the respiratory and olfactory mucosae of the nasal turbinates, including olfactory neuronal cells. Antibody responses to the spike and nucleoprotein were detected from 21 dpi, but virus-neutralizing activity was low. A second intranasal inoculation (re-exposure) of two ferrets after a 17-day interval did not produce re-initiation of viral RNA shedding, but did amplify the humoral response in one animal. Therefore, ferrets can be experimentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 to model human asymptomatic infection.

Please cite this paper as: Slomka et al. (2010) Real time reverse transcription (RRT)‐polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods for detection of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus and European swine influenza A virus infections in pigs. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 4(5), 277–293. Background  There is a requirement to detect and differentiate pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (H1N1v) and established swine influenza A viruses (SIVs) by real time reverse transcription (RRT) PCR methods. Objectives  First, modify an existing matrix (M) gene RRT PCR for sensitive generic detection of H1N1v and other European SIVs. Second, design an H1 RRT PCR to specifically detect H1N1v infections. Methods  RRT PCR assays were used to test laboratory isolates of SIV (n = 51; 37 European and 14 North American), H1N1v (n = 5) and avian influenza virus (AIV; n = 43). Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated for swabs (n = 133) and tissues (n = 116) collected from field cases and pigs infected experimentally with SIVs and H1N1v. Results  The “perfect match” M gene RRT PCR was the most sensitive variant of this test for detection of established European SIVs and H1N1v. H1 RRT PCR specifically detected H1N1v but not European SIVs. Validation with clinical specimens included comparison with virus isolation (VI) as a “gold standard”, while field infection with H1N1v in swine was independently confirmed by sequencing H1N1v amplified by conventional RT PCR. “Perfect match” M gene RRT PCR had 100% sensitivity and 95·2% specificity for swabs, 93·6% and 98·6% for tissues. H1 RRT PCR demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 99·1%, respectively, for the swabs, and 100% and 100% for the tissues. Conclusions  Two RRT PCRs for the purposes of (i) generic detection of SIV and H1N1v infection in European pigs, and for (ii) specific detection of H1N1v (pandemic influenza) infection were validated.

Many different polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocols have been used for detection and characterization of avian influenza (AI) virus isolates, mainly in research settings. Blind ring trials were conducted to determine the most sensitive and specific AI PCR protocols from a group of six European Union (EU) laboratories. In part 1 of the ring trial the laboratories used their own methods to test a panel of 10 reconstituted anonymized clinical specimens, and the best methods were selected as recommended protocols for part 2, in which 16 RNA specimens were tested. Both panels contained H5, H7, other AI subtypes, and non-AI avian pathogens. Outcomes included verification of 1) generic AI identification by highly sensitive and specific M-gene real-time PCR, and 2) conventional PCRs that were effective for detection and identification of H5 and H7 viruses. The latter included virus pathotyping by amplicon sequencing. The use of recommended protocols resulted in improved results among all six laboratories in part 2, reflecting increased sensitivity and specificity. This included improved H5/H7 identification and pathotyping observed among all laboratories in part 2. Details of these PCR methods are provided. In summary, this study has contributed to the harmonization of AI PCR protocols in EU laboratories and influenced AI laboratory contingency planning following the first European reports of H5N1 highly pathogenic AI during autumn 2005.

Aquatic birds are the natural reservoir for most subtypes of influenza A, and a source of novel viruses with the potential to cause human pandemics, fatal zoonotic disease or devastating epizootics in poultry. It is well recognised that waterfowl typically show few clinical signs following influenza A infection, in contrast, terrestrial poultry such as chickens may develop severe disease with rapid death following infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza. This study examined the cellular response to influenza infection in primary cells derived from resistant (duck) and susceptible (chicken) avian hosts. Paradoxically, we observed that duck cells underwent rapid cell death following infection with low pathogenic avian H2N3, classical swine H1N1 and ‘classical' highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses. Dying cells showed morphological features of apoptosis, increased DNA fragmentation and activation of caspase 3/7. Following infection of chicken cells, cell death occurred less rapidly, accompanied by reduced DNA fragmentation and caspase activation. Duck cells produced similar levels of viral RNA but less infectious virus, in comparison with chicken cells. Such rapid cell death was not observed in duck cells infected with a contemporary Eurasian lineage H5N1 fatal to ducks. The induction of rapid death in duck cells may be part of a mechanism of host resistance to influenza A, with the loss of this response leading to increased susceptibility to emergent strains of H5N1. These studies provide novel insights that should help resolve the long-standing enigma of host–pathogen relationships for highly pathogenic and zoonotic avian influenza.