Metagenomic analysis of viral nucleic acid extraction methods in respiratory clinical samples

Abstract

BackgroundNumerous protocols for viral enrichment and genome amplification have been created. However, the direct identification of viral genomes from clinical specimens using next-generation sequencing (NGS) still has its challenges. As a selected viral nucleic acid extraction method may determine the sensitivity and reliability of NGS, it is still valuable to evaluate the extraction efficiency of different extraction kits using clinical specimens directly.ResultsIn this study, we performed qRT-PCR and viral metagenomic analysis of the extraction efficiency of four commonly used Qiagen extraction kits: QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (VRMK), QIAamp MinElute Virus Spin Kit (MVSK), RNeasy Mini Kit (RMK), and RNeasy Plus Micro Kit (RPMK), using a mixed respiratory clinical sample without any pre-treatment. This sample contained an adenovirus (ADV), influenza virus A (Flu A), human parainfluenza virus 3 (PIV3), human coronavirus OC43 (OC43), and human metapneumovirus (HMPV). The quantity and quality of the viral extracts were significantly different among these kits. The highest threshold cycle(Ct)values for ADV and OC43 were obtained by using the RPMK. The MVSK had the lowest Ct values for ADV and PIV3. The RMK revealed the lowest detectability for HMPV and PIV3. The most effective rate of NGS data at 67.47% was observed with the RPMK. The other three kits ranged between 12.1–26.79% effectiveness rates for the NGS data. Most importantly, compared to the other three kits the highest proportion of non-host reads was obtained by the RPMK. The MVSK performed best with the lowest Ct value of 20.5 in the extraction of ADV, while the RMK revealed the best extraction efficiency by NGS analysis.ConclusionsThe evaluation of viral nucleic acid extraction efficiency is different between NGS and qRT-PCR analysis. The RPMK was most applicable for the metagenomic analysis of viral RNA and enabled more sensitive identification of the RNA virus genome in respiratory clinical samples. In addition, viral RNA extraction kits were also applicable for metagenomic analysis of the DNA virus. Our results highlighted the importance of nucleic acid extraction kit selection, which has a major impact on the yield and number of viral reads by NGS analysis. Therefore, the choice of extraction method for a given viral pathogen needs to be carefully considered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-018-5152-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Metagenomic Detection of Two Vientoviruses in a Human Sputum Sample

“…Metagenomic techniques are increasingly being used for the identification of potential pathogens in samples that test negatively in routine clinical assays [1][2][3]. The advantage of this approach is that it does not require a prior assumption about a target pathogen and may be particularly useful when the patient might have been exposed to uncommon pathogens.…”

Assessment of metagenomic sequencing and qPCR for detection of influenza D virus in bovine respiratory tract samples

“…Different viral extraction kits have been demonstrated to have variable extraction efficiencies for different viruses in respiratory clinical samples [29]. The QIAamp MinElute Virus Spin Kit (MVSK) has been found to be generally applicable for isolating nucleic acid for qPCR or metagenomic virus identification of adenovirus, influenza virus A, human parainfluenza virus 3, human coronavirus OC43 and human metapneumovirus in respiratory clinical samples [29]. In our current study, the original nucleic acids extracted with the MVSK were used for both qPCR and metagenomic sequencing, eliminating the influence of different extraction methods and kits on our results (Figure 1a).…”

Phospholipase C inhibits apoptosis of porcine oocytes cultured in vitro

“…Total RNA was extracted from oocytes using the RNeasy Plus Micro Kit (74004; Qiagen, Dusseldorf, Germany) . The RNA concentration was determined using a spectrophotometer (NanoDrop 2000c; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) with an absorbance of 260 nm.…”