Table 2.
Comparison of results detected for clinical samples by duplex qPCR and previously reported qPCR assays for PEDV and PCV3.
| Method | Quantity | Results |
Detection rate (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEDV | PCV3 | PEDV/PCV3 | Negative | |||
| Duplex qPCR (PEDV/PCV3) | 66 | 29 | 11 | 18 | 8 | 87.88 |
| Single qPCR (PEDV) | 66 | 29 | - | 18 | 19 | 71.21 |
| Single qPCR (PCV3) | 66 | - | 11 | 18 | 37 | 43.94 |
| Zhou's qPCR (PEDV) | 66 | 29 | - | 18 | 19 | 71.21 |
| Chen's qPCR (PCV3) | 66 | - | 11 | 18 | 37 | 43.94 |
| Conventional PCR (PEDV) | 66 | 28 | - | 16 | 22 | 66.67 |
| Conventional PCR (PCV3) | 66 | - | 10 | 16 | 40 | 39.39 |
Note:In this study, the PEDV primers target a 163bp sequence in ORF1. The sensitivity of this assay may be lower than assays targeting other viral genes, such as M and N protein. We compared used a published method (by Zhou et al.) to confirm the positivity of PEDV in clinical samples. However, in the Zhou's method, the primers target PEDV M gene, and the detection rate for PEDV are similar to that of Zhou's PEDV qPCR method. The result suggested that compared with M or N genes, primers designed in ORF1 region may affect the sensitivity of the test, but PEDV primers designed in highly conservative region will not have a significant impact on the positive rate of clinical samples.