Danielle de Araújo Cruz Oliveira
Hepatitis E virus in shellfish of Iberian Peninsula:
A risk for public health
Porto, setembro, 2015
.
Trabalho realizado no Laboratório de Microbiologia, Departamento de Ciências e
Biologia da Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade do Porto, sob a orientação da
Professora Doutora Maria de São José Garcia Alexandre.
Dissertação do 2º ciclo de estudos
conducente ao grau de Mestre em Controlo
de Qualidade, apresentada à Faculdade de
Farmácia da Universidade do Porto.
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The development of this work has brought me personal capital gains and compelling
and outstanding professionals. Without the collaboration and availability of some
persons would not be possible.
First I have to thank to Professor Maria de São José Alexandre the available time and
requirement that guided this work and transmission of knowledge, by living, for her
support, understanding and friendship my most sincere thanks without saying how
much I admire her as a professional, as sympathy in person.
I also thank my lab colleagues for assistance and co-work Carolina Rebelo and Joana
Silva, really it was very satisfying our coexistence with respect and collaboration.
A big thank you to Dra. Joana, from Bromatology department and Molecular Biology
laboratory, for always receive me to take doubts. That was true lessons. You helped a
lot!
Thanks for my husband for supporting and encouraging me in achieving this master, for
your patience and love.
Thanks for my family despite being away will always be my strength and inspiration to
accomplish all the goals I set myself.
Thanks for my mother and father in law for supporting in everything.
ii
The work developed in this dissertation originated the following publication:
Mesquita, JR; Oliveira, D.; Abreu-Silva, J.; Varela, MF; Rivadula, E; Romalde, JU;
Nascimento, MSJ. 2015. Hepatitis E vírus genotype 3 in mussels (Mytilus
galloprovincialis), Spain. [Submitted to Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases].
iii
ABSTRACT
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is known as a leading cause of acute hepatitis linked to fecal-
oral transmission in developing countries. However in the last decade an increasing
number of autochthonous cases of HEV infection were recorded in industrialized
countries. A zoonotic transmission has been linked to these cases through undercooked
HEV contaminated pork meat intake or to direct contact. Infectious HEV has been
found in swine manure therefore, application of manure to land and subsequent runoff
to coastal water, can lead to a contamination of shellfish cultivated in this contaminated
environment. The consumption of these shellfish, usually lightly cooked or raw, could
be an important route of HEV infection.
The aim of the present study was to search for the presence of HEV RNA in shellfish
samples collected in a coastal area of Galicia, Spain, and to characterize the HEV
positive samples in order to evaluate the genetic relationship with strains already
known.
Shellfish samples (n=81) were tested for the presence of HEV RNA using three in
house real-time RT-PCR methods (Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR, Kapa Fast Universal One-
Step qRT-PCR, One Step Kapa Sybr® Fast qPCR) targeting a conserved region of the
open reading frame (ORF) 3 of HEV genome. Positive samples were further tested with
a nested RT-PCR targeting the ORF1 of HEV. The obtained amplified products (330bp)
were sequenced and submitted to phylogenetic analysis.
Six samples presented the expected amplicon that clustered with sequences classified as
HEV genotype 3 subgenotype e, and showed to be closely related to human strains.
This is the first study reporting the presence of HEV in shellfish cultivated in Iberian
Peninsula thus demonstrating a potential risk to public health.
Keywords: Hepatitis E virus, HEV, shellfish, real-time RT-PCR
iv
RESUMO
O vírus da hepatite E (HEV) é conhecido como a principal causa de hepatite aguda
associada à transmissão fecal-oral nos países em desenvolvimento. No entanto, na
última década tem sido registado nos países industrializados um número cada vez maior
de casos de infeção autóctone pelo HEV. A transmissão zoonótica tem sido associada a
estes casos pela da ingestão de carne de porco mal cozida contaminada com HEV ou
por contacto direto. O HEV já foi encontrado em excrementos de suínos, portanto, a sua
aplicação para adubação da terra e o subsequente escoamento destes dejetos para as
águas costeiras, poderia levar à contaminação de moluscos bivalves cultivados nestas
áreas. O consumo de bivalves, normalmente crus ou ligeiramente cozidos, poderia ser
uma importante via de infecção pelo HEV.
O objetivo do presente estudo foi pesquisar a presença de HEV RNA em amostras de
moluscos bivalves coletados em uma área costeira da Galiza, Espanha, e para
caracterizar as amostras positivas HEV, a fim de avaliar a relação genética com cepas já
conhecidas.
As amostras foram testadas (n = 81) foram testados quanto à presença de HEV RNA
utilizando três métodos in house de RT-PCR em tempo real (Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR,
Kapa Fast Universal One-Step qRT-PCR, a um passo One Step Kapa Sybr® Fast qPCR)
com primers ligando-se a uma sequência na região ORF 3 do genoma do HEV. As
amostras positivas foram também testadas com nested RT-PCR com primers ligando-se
à região ORF1 do HEV.
Os produtos amplificados obtidos (330pb) foram sequenciados e submetidos à análise
filogenética. Seis amostras apresentaram o fragmento amplificado esperado que
agrupado com sequências classificadas como HEV genótipo 3 e subgenótipo, e
mostrou-se intimamente relacionada com cepas humanas.
Este é o primeiro trabalho que documenta a ocorrência de HEV em bivalves cultivados
na Península Ibérica evidenciando assim um potencial risco para a saúde pública.
Palavras chave: Vírus da Hepatite E, HEV, Moluscos bivalves, RT-PCR em tempo real
v
INDEX
ACKNOWLEDMENTS ............................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii
RESUMO .................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... viii
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... x
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Hepatitis E virus: general characterization ..................................................... 2
1.1.1 Epidemiology of human HEV infection ............................................. 3
1.1.2 HEV Infection symptoms ................................................................... 5
1.1.3 Hepatitis E virus hosts and reservoirs ................................................ 6
1.2 Environmental routes of HEV Transmission .................................................. 7
1.2.1 Sewage and Animal Manure Run-off ................................................. 8
1.2.2 Surface Water ..................................................................................... 8
1.2.3 Coastal Water ..................................................................................... 9
1.3 Foodborne transmission .................................................................................. 10
1.4 Presence of HEV in shellfish .......................................................................... 10
1.5 Detection of HEV in food ............................................................................... 12
1.5.1 Real-time PCR .................................................................................... 12
1.5.2 Real-time PCR design ........................................................................ 14
1.5.3 Analytical verification ........................................................................ 19
1.6 Internal Quality Control: Controls and inhibitors of PCR assays ................... 21
1.6.1 Process Controls ................................................................................. 22
1.7 Inhibition of PCR assays ................................................................................. 22
2. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 24
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................... 26
3.1 Samples ........................................................................................................... 27
3.1.1 HEV and mengovirus ......................................................................... 27
3.2 Real-time RT-PCR for detection of HEV RNA ............................................. 27
3.2.1 Primers and probe ............................................................................... 28
vi
3.2.2 Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR ................................................................... 28
3.2.3 Kapa Fast Universal One-Step qRT-PCR .......................................... 29
3.2.4 One Step Kapa Sybr® Fast qPCR ....................................................... 31
3.3 Nested RT-PCR for the detection of HEV RNA ............................................ 32
3.3.1 Primers................................................................................................ 32
3.3.2 Nested RT-PCR .................................................................................. 33
3.4 Electrophoresis and purification of amplified products .................................. 34
3.4.1 Sequencing of HEV nested RT-PCR products ................................... 35
3.5 Real-time RT-PCR for mengovirus ................................................................ 35
3.5.1 Primers and probe ............................................................................... 35
3.5.2 Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR ................................................................... 36
3.5.2 Evaluation of viral mengovirus RNA extraction efficiency ............... 37
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 38
4.1 Detection of HEV RNA in shellfish by Qiagen qRT-PCR ............................. 39
4.1.1 Detection limit of the Qiagen qRT-PCR ............................................ 39
4.1.2 HEV RNA detection in shellfish by Qiagen qRT-PCR ..................... 41
4.2 Detection of HEV RNA in shellfish by Kapa qRT-PCR ................................ 43
4.2.1 Detection limit of Kapa qRT-PCR ..................................................... 43
4.2.2 HEV RNA detection in shellfish by Kapa qRT-PCR ......................... 45
4.3 Detection of HEV RNA in shellfish by Kapa Sybr® qPCR ............................ 48
4.3.1 Kapa Sybr® qPCR Optimization ........................................................ 48
4.3.2 Detection limit of Kapa Sybr® qPCR ................................................. 50
4.3.3 HEV RNA detection in shellfish by Kapa Sybr® qPCR .................... 52
4.4 Detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR ................................................... 56
4.5 Sequencing of HEV nested RT-PCR products ............................................... 59
4.6 Evaluation of viral RNA extraction efficiency ............................................... 60
5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 64
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 66
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Scheme showing the organization of the three viral open reading frames
(ORFs) ....................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Geographical distribution of prevalence of human hepatitis E and
genotypes ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3: Real-time PCR detection using TaqMan® probes 5’-3’ polymerase and
exonuclease activity of the Taq DNA polymerase (TAQ). .................... 17
Figure 4: Real-time PCR detection using Sybr Green® ........................................... 19
Figure 5: Establishment of the Qiagen qRT-PCR Standard curve for HEV ............ 40
Figure 6: Establishment of the Kapa qRT-PCR standard curve for HEV ................ 44
Figure 7: Optimization for HEV detection by Kapa Sybr® qPCR ........................... 47
Figure 8: Melting curves of the serial dilutions with annealing temperature of
64ºC ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 9: Amplification curves of standards stock solution Kapa Sybr® qPCR. ..... 50
Figure 10: Amplification curves of shellfish samples tested undiluted by Kapa
Sybr® qPCR. ........................................................................................... 52
Figure 11: Amplification plot of samples tested diluted by Kapa Sybr® qPCR
that were considered positive.................................................................. 54
Figure 12: Electrophoresis gel of amplified products after nested RT-PCR
shellfish samples ..................................................................................... 56
Figure 13: Phylogenetic tree based on the nucleotide sequence of the ORF1. ........ 58
Figure 14: Mengovirus amplification curves of undiluted and diluted shellfish
samples by real-Time RT-PCR ............................................................... 61
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Primers and probe used for the detection of HEV RNA by real-time RT-
PCR. .......................................................................................................... 28
Table 2: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by Qiagen qRT-PCR. ................... 28
Table 3: Thermal conditions for Qiagen qRT-PCR. ................................................. 29
Table 4: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by Kapa qRT-PCR ....................... 30
Table 5: Thermal conditions for Kapa qRT-PCR ..................................................... 30
Table 6: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by Kapa Sybr® qPCR. .................. 31
Table 7: Thermal conditions tested for optimization of HEV RNA detection by
Kapa Sybr® qPCR ..................................................................................... 32
Table 8: Primers used for detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR. ................... 32
Table 9: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR - first round ... 33
Table 10: Thermal conditions for nested RT-PCR - first round. .............................. 33
Table 11: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR - second
round ....................................................................................................... 34
Table 12: Thermal conditions for nested RT-PCR - second round .......................... 34
Table 13: Primers and probe used for mengovirus detection ................................... 36
Table 14: Mastermix for detection of mengovirus by Qiagen qRT-PCR ................. 37
Table 15: Thermal conditions for detection of mengovirus by Qiagen qRT-PCR ... 37
Table 16: Ct values and number of copies of HEV RNA by Qiagen qRT-PCR ...... 39
Table 17: Ct values and interpretation of results of undiluted and diluted shellfish
samples for the detection of HEV RNA by qiagen qRT-PCR ............... 42
Table 18: Ct values and number of copies of HEV RNA by Kapa qRT-PCR. ........ 43
ix
Table 19: Ct values and interpretation of undiluted shellfish samples for the
detection of HEV RNA by Kapa probe qRT-PCR ................................... 45
Table 20: Comparison of the interpretation of results of 22 shellfish samples
tested by both Qiagen and Kapa qRT-PCR .............................................. 46
Table 21: Ct values and melting curve of HEV RNA stock solution by Kapa Sybr®
qPCR .......................................................................................................................... 49
Table 22: Ct values, melt temperatures and interpretation of results of undiluted
and diluted 1:5 shellfish samples by Kapa Sybr® qPCR for the
detection of HEV RNA ........................................................................... 51
Table 23: Results of the detection of HEV RNA in shellfish samples by nested
RT-PCR ..................................................................................................... 55
Table 24: Comparison of the results by real-time RT-PCR and nested RT-PCR
assays in 33 shellfish samples ................................................................ 57
Table 25: Extraction efficiency of undiluted and diluted shellfish samples spiked with
mengovirus ................................................................................................ 60
x
ABBREVIATIONS
BSA Bovine serum albumin
C Citosin
Ct Threshold cycle
Cq Quantification cycle
DABCYL 4-((4-(dimethylamino) phenyl) azo) benzoic acid
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
FAM 6-car-boxyfluorescein
FRET Fluorescence resonance energy transfer
G Guanine
HEV Hepatitis E virus
HEX Hexacholoro-6-carboxyfluorescein
JOE 2,7-dimethoxy-4,5-dichloro-6-carboxy-fluorescein
mM Milimolar
MNV-1 Murine norovirus 1
nM Nanomolar
nt Nucleotide
ORF Open reading frame
PCR Polymerase chain reaction
PFU Plaque-forming units
qPCR Quantitative real-time PCR
RFU Relative fluorescence units
RNA Ribonucleic acid
RT Reverse transcription
RT-PCR Reverse transcription PCR
SPC Sample process control
Ta Annealing temperature
TAMRA 5-Carboxytetramethylrhodamine
xi
TET Tetrachloro-6-car-boxyfluorescein
Tm Melting temperature
1
1. INTRODUCTION
_______________________________________________
2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Hepatitis E virus: general characterization
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is the most common cause of acute viral hepatitis worldwide
(Sridhar et al., 2015). Originally considered to be restricted to humans, it is now clear
that HEV viruses have several animal reservoirs with complex ecology and genetic
diversity and it is responsible for epidemics and endemics of acute hepatitis in humans,
mainly through waterborne, foodborne, and zoonotic transmission routes (Yugo &
Meng, 2013).
HEV is the sole member of the family Hepeviridae (Mirazo et al., 2013). Is a small,
non-enveloped, positive sense, single-stranded RNA virus (Yugo & Meng, 2013). The
genome (Figure 1) has a size of approximately 7.2 kb and consists of three open reading
frames (ORF) (Kumar et al., 2013). These three ORFs encode a non-structural
polyprotein (ORF1), the capsid protein (ORF2) and a phosphoprotein (ORF3)
associated with signal transduction (Johne et al., 2009). The genome is capped at the 5′
end and polyadenylated at the 3′ end (Smith, 2001; Xia et al., 2008; Johne et al., 2009).
Based on whole genome sequencing, HEV has been characterized into four major
genotypes (1-4) (Kumar et al., 2013). HEV genotypes 1 and 2 are only found in humans
and account for most of the hepatitis E in the developing world where transmission
occurs by the fecal-oral route via contaminated waterways (Sridhar et al., 2015). HEV
genotypes 3 and 4 are found in swine and other animals across the world (Sridhar et al.,
2015).
Figure 1: Scheme showing the organization of the three viral open reading frames (ORFs). (Mirazo et al.,
2014).
3
1.1.1 Epidemiology of human HEV infection
Hepatitis E affects humans in both industrialized and developing countries worldwide.
Although HEV was first known as a leading cause of acute hepatitis linked to fecal-oral
transmission in developing countries, hepatitis E has been found to be endemic in Japan,
Australia, the United States, and Europe (Dalton et al., 2008a; Purcell & Emerson,
2008).
Industrialized countries experience sporadic and cluster cases of hepatitis E. The
seroprevalence data from industrialized countries suggests that subclinical or
unrecognized infection is common. The incidence of autochthonous hepatitis E is not
known (Dalton et al., 2008a) and few data are available on the risk factors and
contamination pathways involved in acute indigenous hepatitis E in developed countries
(Renou et al., 2008). The prevalence of HEV IgG antibodies in low-incidence
populations in industrialized countries ranges from 3% in Tokyo, Japan (Ding et al.,
2003), 3.2% in central France (Boutrouille et al., 2008), 7.3% in Catalonia, Spain (Buti
et al., 2006), 16.6% in southwest France (Mansuy et al., 2008), 16% in southwest
England (Dalton et al., 2008b), to 21.3% in US blood donors (Thomas et al., 1997).
Hepatitis E is highly endemic in the Indian subcontinent, China, Southeast and Central
Asia, the Middle East, and northern and western parts of Africa (Aggarwal & Naik,
2009, Aggarwal, 2011). In these areas, outbreaks of hepatitis E of variable sizes have
been reported. In addition, a fairly large proportion of cases with sporadic acute
hepatitis in these areas are caused by HEV infection. Water-borne transmission is the
most common route for acquisition of infection. Large outbreaks of frequently occur
due to fecal-oral transmission, usually through contamination of drinking water (Kumar
et al., 2013). It is plausible that food-borne transmission also plays a role in the
transmission of hepatitis E in these regions. However, this is difficult to prove because
of the relatively long incubation period and the consequent difficulties in attributing
disease to consumption of a particular food (Aggarwal, 2011). Both outbreaks and
sporadic cases of hepatitis E in these regions have been related to genotype 1 or 2; in
some areas, a proportion of sporadic cases have been related to genotype 4 (Aggarwal &
Naik, 2009; Aggarwal, 2011). For these countries this is an important public-health
concern because it causes large epidemics and waterborne outbreaks due to poor
4
sanitation conditions and a hyperendemic status in the population (Teo, 2010; Mirazo et
al., 2013).
In comparison, in the developed parts of the world, e.g. western Europe, USA, Japan
and Australia, hepatitis E is uncommon. Till nearly 10 years ago, cases of hepatitis E in
these areas were all related to travel to areas where the disease is common. Acute cases
of hepatitis E were reported in travelers returning from endemic regions although
sporadic cases have also been reported in patients with no known epidemiological risk
factors (Pilar et al., 2003; Lewis et al., 2008) what can be attributed as a result of
zoonotic transmission associated with ingestion of contaminated animal meat,
especially swine, shellfish, and contact with infected animals (Teo, 2010; Meng, 2013;
Said et al., 2013). The high prevalence of HEV infection among persons with
occupational exposure to swine suggests animal-to-human transmission of this infection
(Drobeniuc et al., 2001). However, in recent years, several case reports and case-series
of locally acquired (autochthonous) hepatitis E have been published from these areas.
Autochthonous hepatitis E in these areas has differences in routes of transmission and in
clinical features than those reported from the areas where hepatitis E is hyperendemic
(Aggarwal & Naik, 2009; Pavio & Mansuy, 2010). The locally acquired HEV infection
in these areas has been found to be related to genotype 3 and 4 virus (Meng, 2010).
The geographic distribution of prevalence of HEV infection and genotypes is presented
in Figure 2.
5
Figure 2: Geographical distribution of prevalence of human hepatitis E and genotypes. A) worldwide
prevalence of HEV infections; B) worldwide distribution of HEV genotypes. The colors used for each
country represent the predominant HEV genotypes of human and animal strains (mostly pigs) (Ruggeri et
al., 2013).
1.1.2 HEV Infection symptoms
HEV infection is silent in most individuals and when symptomatic, usually produces a
self-limiting icteric illness. Young adults, 15 to 30 years of age, are the most affected,
and the overall death rate is 0.5 to 3.0% (Smith et al., 2001). Progression to severe
fulminant liver failure may occur in certain high-risk groups, such as pregnant women
and elderly patients with underlying liver disease (Sridhar et al., 2015).
The clinical outcomes associated with HEV infection are quite diverse. The infection
most commonly manifests as self-limiting, acute icteric hepatitis, which is
indistinguishable from acute hepatitis caused by other hepatotropic viruses. In most
cases, contact with HEV leads to an asymptomatic infection followed by spontaneous
clearance of the virus, and only a minority of patients develop the symptomatic, icteric
course of the disease (Zhu et al., 2010; Rein et al., 2012).
6
Symptomatic patients experience a range of symptoms, including anorexia, jaundice,
darkened urine coloration, hepatomegaly, myalgia, elevated alanine aminotransferase
(ALT) levels in the blood, and occasionally abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and fever
(Purcell & Emerson, 2008). Acute HEV infection in humans begins with a typical
incubation period of 2 weeks to 2 months, a transient viremia period with viral shedding
in the feces, a symptomatic phase lasting days to weeks, and jaundice apparent 2 to 3
weeks into the course of infection (Purcell, 2001). The severity of HEV infection is
considered dose dependent with alcohol use or other concurrent hepatic diseases as
contributing factors (Purcell, 2001).
Pregnant women especially from the Indian subcontinent and Africa are at increased
risk of contracting acute HEV infection (HEV 1 and 2) as well as developing severe
complications including acute liver failure (Shalimar & Acharya, 2013). HEV infection
in pregnant women may cause particularly severe illness, with a mortality rate of 15 to
25% (Aggarwal & Krawczynski, 2000; Smith et al., 2001). Death of the mother and
fetus, abortion, premature delivery, or death of a live-born baby soon after birth, are
common complications of hepatitis E infection during pregnancy (Smith et al., 2001).
The high pregnancy-associated mortality in HEV1 has not been reported with HEV3 or
HEV4 (Kamar et al., 2012).
There are numerous reports of persistent and chronic HEV infection in
immunocompromised patients, such as organ transplant recipients (Kamar et al., 2012)
and HIV infection (Dalton et al., 2009). Chronic HEV infection in immunosuppressed
persons has been shown to lead to chronic hepatitis and progressive liver fibrosis,
culminating in liver cirrhosis (Gerolami et al., 2008; Haagsma et al., 2008). All patients
with chronic HEV infection reported till date have been related to genotype 3 virus; no
cases of chronic hepatitis E caused by infection with genotypes prevalent in high-
endemicity countries, namely genotype 1 and 2, have been described (Aggarwal, 2011).
1.1.3 Hepatitis E virus hosts and reservoirs
A number of animals are known to serve as the natural hosts and reservoirs for HEV,
genotypes 3 and 4. First detections of HEV 3 in animals were reported in swine (Meng
et al., 1997), chicken (Haqshenas et al., 2001) and deer (Tei et al., 2003). HEV has been
genetically identified in rats (Johne et al., 2010), wild boar (Tian-Cheng et al., 2005),
monkeys (Yamamoto et al., 2012), mongoose (Nidaira et al. 2012), rabbits (Han et al.,
7
2014), ferrets (Li et al., 2015), cutthroat trout (Batts et al., 2011) and bats (Drexler et
al., 2012). All of these animal species are potentially natural hosts of HEV but just a
few of these species have been identified as true reservoirs of HEV. Defining a true
reservoir as a population in which the pathogen can be permanently maintained and
from which infection is transmitted to the defined target population (Haydon et al.,
2002), presumably only domestic swine, wild boar and deer should be regarded as true
reservoirs of zoonotic HEVs.
The non-travel-related HEV infections in industrialized countries are of zoonotic origin.
The food-borne zoonotic transmission of HEV is supported by studies in which the
relation between consumption of meat or organs from pigs (Yazaki et al., 2003) wild
boars (Matsuda et al., 2003) or deer (Tei et al., 2003) and hepatitis E.
Sequences of the swine HEV genotype 3 and 4 strains closely related to human strains
have been detected in many countries worldwide (van der Poel et al., 2001; Legrand-
Abravanel et al., 2009), and most frequently involved in countries formerly designated
as nonendemic for HEV, supporting that pigs are the reservoir of the indigenous
infections in these countries (Bouwknegt et al., 2007; Hakze-van der Honing et al.,
2011; Said et al., 2014).
HEV RNA has also been detected in wild boar in several countries (Tian-Cheng et al.,
2005; de Deus et al., 2008; Martelli et al., 2008; Mesquita et al., 2014), and in deer (Tei
et al., 2003; Reuter et al., 2009). More direct evidence of zoonotic food-borne
transmission of genotype 3 was obtained when four cases of hepatitis E were linked
directly to eating raw deer meat since identical HEV strains were found in the deer meat
consumed and the patients (Tei et al., 2003).
1.2 Environmental routes of HEV Transmission
The presence of human and animal pathogenic enteric viruses in water environments
reflects fecal contamination and indicates a risk to public health. Water is an important
vehicle for the transmission of enteric viruses. Rivers, lakes, streams and coastal waters
are regularly contaminated by septic tanks, storm water, overflow and agricultural and
animal manure runoff, used in agriculture, and effluents from inefficiently operated
sewage treatment plants (Lazic et al., 2015). Additionally, water could be also
8
contaminated from overflows of treatment plants impacted by flooding events, or
through direct inflow of untreated sewage (Lazic et al., 2015).
The resulting viral contamination of sea and coastal water, rivers and other surface
waters, ground waters, and irrigated vegetables and fruits is associated with subsequent
risks of reintroduction of the viral pathogens into human and animal populations (Yates
et al., 1985; Metcalf et al., 1995; Koopmans et al., 2002).
1.2.1 Sewage and Animal Manure Runoff
In areas where swine are raised, swine manure could be a source of HEV contamination
of irrigation water or coastal waters with concomitant contamination of produce or
shellfish (Smith et al., 2001). Infectious HEV has been found in swine manure and
wastewater (McCreary et al., 2008), therefore, application of manure to land and
subsequent runoff could contaminate surface water (Pina et al., 1998; Rutjes et al.,
2009).
1.2.2 Surface Water
Surface waters may also expose humans to HEV (Rutjes et al., 2009). Surface water is
easily contaminated by stable fecal-shed viruses such as HEV and acts as a public health
hazard (Rodriguez-Lazaro et al., 2012). The quality of surface water directly affects
populations utilizing the source since drinking water, and intensive farming practices
lead to higher detection rates of viruses within these sources (Rodriguez-Lazaro et al.,
2012).
Contaminated surface waters may enter food production chains, in particular via
shellfish culture areas and irrigation waters. HEV contamination of irrigation and
drinking water via animal manure or sewage, with concomitant contamination of
vegetables, fruits, or shellfish, may implicate a food safety risk (Le Guyader et al.,
2009).
Autochthonous HEV cases in no endemic regions may be associated to contaminated
fresh products. More recently HEV sequences have been detected on soft fruits and
vegetables, with irrigation water as the suspected contamination origin (Brassard et al.,
2012; Maunula et al., 2013).
9
The occurrence of a swine-like HEV genotype 3 in freshwater has also been reported in
Japan and South Korea (Li et al., 2007; Kamar et al., 2012). In Italy, HEV was detected
in surface water analyzed, with all isolates belonging to genotype 3 (Idolo et al., 2013).
Recently HEV has been detected in river waters from Italy where the sequences were
similar to sequences detected previously in patients with autochthonous HEV (no travel
history) and in animals (swine) (Iaconelli et al., 2015)
1.2.3 Coastal Water
Bivalve shellfish are at constant risk of being exposed to enteric virus as a consequence
of contamination of the shellfish beds with human or animal waste originating from
sewage treatment plants or slurry fertilized fields (Krog et al., 2014). Coastal waters
may also be contaminated by HEV leading to accumulation of the virus in the digestive
tissues of shellfish, which poses a risk of human infection through ingestion (Yugo &
Meng, 2013).
Habitually, mussels, cockles, and oysters are eaten raw or slightly cooked, thus
behaving as potential vehicles for pathogenic agents and therefore a significant health
risk. HEV is stable in both alkaline and acidic environments, after frozen for more than
10 years, and remains infectious at up to 60 °C for 1h, suggesting that a raw, rare-
cooked, or slightly steamed contaminated seafood may transmit HEV to consumers
(Emerson et al., 2005; Namsai et al., 2011;.
Shellfish consumption have been associated in an outbreak of HEV occurred onboard a
cruise ship in European waters (Said et al., 2009) and has been identified in commercial
mussels obtained from three European countries (Finland, Greece, and Spain) (Diez-
Valcarce et al., 2012) and Asia (Gao et al., 2015). Another study from Scotland showed
that from shellfish samples (mussels) analyzed 92% were tested positive for HEV RNA
genotype 3 (Crossan et al., 2012). Recently 13 different sub-genotype 4 HEV were
found in contaminated shellfish in the Bohai Gulf rim, in China (Gao et al., 2015).
There is an increased risk for travelling to regions of endemicity of acquiring HEV
infection from contaminated water and seafood, but industrialized countries are not
excepted (Zuckerman, 2003). Case reports of hepatitis E in England, Italy, and France
reveal shellfish consumption as a common source risk factor of infection (Cacopardo et
al., 1997; Ijaz et al., 2005; Renou et al., 2008).
10
1.3 Foodborne transmission
The foods related to virus contamination can be divided in two different groups
concerned to its route of contamination. One group comprises bivalve shellfish such as
oysters, clams and mussels which are contaminated with enteric viruses in their growing
sea life ( Li et al., 2007, Donia et al., 2012, Suffredini et al., 2014, Gao et al., 2015) and
the other group includes other types of foods, which are secondarily contaminated with
enteric viruses, mainly from infected food handlers, during food processing and/or food
serving (Rodríguez-Lazaro et al., 2012). In general, food may be contaminated at
different stages of production, such as by fecal contamination of shellfish-growing
waters, the use of night soil to fertilize crops, the fecal contamination of water used to
wash fruits after harvest (Le Guyader et al., 2008).
Zoonotic source for HEV infections, exposure to reservoirs of HEV might occur
through contact with animal products. The consumption of contaminated food or
drinking water (genotypes 1 and 2), may also expose humans to HEV (Rutjes et al.,
2009; Colson et al., 2010; Purcell & Emerson, 2010).
Foodborne transmission of HEV was first demonstrated in clusters of Japanese patients
after eating raw or undercooked meat from swine, wild boar or Sika deer ( Yazaki et al.,
2003; Takahashi & Okamoto, 2014;) . The genomic sequences of HEV identified from
the infected patients were identical to those recovered from the frozen leftover meat
(Tei et al., 2003; Takahashi & Okamoto, 2014).
Consumption of undercooked or raw organs or tissues such pork liver or wild boar and
sausages from infected swine has been epidemiologically linked to numerous cases of
hepatitis E worldwide (Tian-Cheng et al., 2005; Masuda et al., 2005; Meng,
2011;Miyashita et al., 2012). For example, three cases of hepatitis E in Japan were
associated with the consumption of undercooked or raw pork presumably from the same
barbeque restaurant (Miyashita et al., 2012), evidencing zoonotic foodborne HEV
transmission.
1.4 Presence of HEV in shellfish
Bivalve mollusks, such as mussels and oysters, are one of the most common foods
implicated in the transmission and dissemination of a wide variety of human enteric
viruses around the world (Lees, 2000; Polo et al., 2010). In one study, Lees (2000)
11
observed that shellfish grown in sewage polluted waters tend to bioaccumulate
environmentally stable enteric viruses, such as norovirus, hepatitis A virus and
enterovirus. Shellfish contamination can be attributed to its contact to human fecal
pollution in the waters or virus contamination at any point during cultivation,
harvesting, processing, distribution, sale or service (Lees 2000). Bivalve mollusks filter
large volumes of water undertaken as part of their feeding process, and must
concentrate viral particles during this process, principally in the pancreatic tissue, also
called digestive diverticula, (Le Guyader et al., 2009) posing a risk of human infection
through ingestion (Yugo & Meng, 2013).
The fact of mussels, cockles, and oysters be consumed habitually raw or slightly cooked
and whole, including digestive tissues (where viruses are mainly concentrated), the
traditional way of consuming shellfish, represents a very important vehicle from
gastrointestinal infections (Donia et al., 2012) making the bivalve mollusks a high-risk
food group (Romalde et al., 1994).
It was generally thought that shellfish act as mere filters or ionic traps, passively
concentrating particles such as bacteria or virus (Le Guyader et al., 2009). However,
unlike enteric bacterial species, enteric viruses persist in shellfish for an extended period
of time and it is this persistence that appears to result in its significant impact on public
health (Le Guyader et al., 2009). HEV is deemed to be inactivated during processing
procedures used to prepare mussels for consumption, however, HEV is only 50%
inactivated at 56°C and 80% at 60°C for 1 hour, and some strains seems to be more
stable than others (Emerson et al., 2005). It is stable when exposed to
trifluorotrichloroethane, and it is resistant to inactivation by acidic and alkaline
conditions (Emerson et al., 2005).
HEV has been reported in shellfish collected in some European and Asian countries (Li
et al., 2007; Crossan et al., 2012; Donia et al., 2012; Gao et al., 2015) and years ago an
outbreak that occurred in a cruise ship in 2008 (Said et al, 2009) was related to
consumption of shellfish. One of the most difficulties to detect HEV, as well other
virus, in shellfish, is the fact that these viruses are present in very low numbers.
Nevertheless, they are present in sufficient quantities to pose a health risk (Le Guyader
et al., 2009).
12
For the detection of enteric viruses in shellfish, molecular methods such as reverse
transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are widely used (Le Guyader et al.
2000; Bosch et al., 2011) providing the tools for monitoring control quality and safety
of enteric viruses in shellfish as well as surveillance of outbreaks of gastroenteritis and
infectious hepatitis (Le Guyader et al. 2000; Lees 2000).
For bivalve mollusks, dissected digestive diverticulum (digestive gland) is used as the
starting material with further enzymatic digestion using proteinase K combined with
heat treatment at 65 °C (Jothikumar et al., 2005). This enzymatic/thermal treatment
damages the viral capsid, thereby releasing the nucleic acids (Nuanualsuwan & Cliver,
2002). Focusing the analysis of shellfish on the digestive tissues enhances assay
performance by eliminating tissues (i.e. adductor muscle) that are rich in inhibitors
(Atmar et al. 1995). However, shellfish tissue identification using PCR technique still
presented with several problems. The low quantity of virus in shellfish samples render
them a difficult and variable matrix that is also known to cause amplification inhibition
(Lowther et al., 2008) increasing the risk of false negative results (Diez-Valcarce et al.,
2012). For this reason, effective preliminary sample treatment steps such as elution and
concentration of viruses from the shellfish tissue and RNA extraction and purification
are essential for final PCR accuracy and reproducibility (Le Guyader et al., 2000).
1.5 Detection of HEV in food
Polymerase chain reaction-PCR-based methods have been successfully used to monitor
food products for viral contamination (Rodriguez et al., 2009). During PCR, a fragment
of the viral genome is amplified using specific primers. For RNA viruses, RT of the
viral RNA to a cDNA strand is necessary prior to the PCR.
1.5.1 Real-time PCR
The development of real-time PCR has represented one of the most significant advances
in food diagnostics as it provides rapid, reliable and quantitative results. These features
become increasingly important for the agricultural and food industry. Different
strategies for real-time PCR diagnostics have been developed including unspecific
detection independent of the target sequence using fluorescent dyes such as Sybr Green,
or by sequence-specific fluorescent oligonucleotide probes such as TaqMan® probes
13
(Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013). In both cases, fluorescence is measured during
each cycle, and when the amount of fluorescence exceeds the background level
(threshold level), the sample is scored as positive (Rodriguez et al., 2009). The number
of cycles needed to reach the threshold level, commonly referred to as the cycle
threshold value, correlates with the amount of target in the sample prior to amplification
(Rodriguez et al., 2009).
Some enteric viruses, like HEV, do not grow in any cell culture-based detection system
(Duizer et al. 2004) consequently a real-time PCR was raised as an elective method for
the detection of the presence of these viruses in food, water or environmental samples.
The analysis of the presence of virus in food is an integral part of food quality control,
as well as of the management of food chain safety (De Medici et al., 2015).
Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) is very similar to traditional PCR. In qPCR the
amount of DNA is measured after each cycle via fluorescent dyes that yield increasing
fluorescent signal in direct proportion to the number of PCR product molecules
(amplicons) generated (Sigma Aldrich, 2008). Data is collected in the exponential phase
of the reaction yield. The major difference being that with qPCR the amount of PCR
product is measured after each round of amplification while with traditional PCR, the
amount of PCR product is measured only at the end point of amplification (Sigma
Aldrich, 2008).
HEV is a single stranded RNA virus and therefore require reverse transcription to be
converted into double-stranded cDNA prior to PCR. When this stage is necessary, the
capacity of an extraction method to obtain a nucleic acid sample as pure as possible is a
particularly important point. Indeed, the high susceptibility of reverse transcriptase to
inhibitory substances is a major limiting factor in such methods (De Medici et al.,
2015).
The reverse transcriptase is as critical to the success of qRT-PCR as the DNA
polymerase once it introduces substantial variation into a qRT-PCR assay (Bustin et al.,
2009). It is important to choose a reverse transcriptase that not only provides high yields
of full-length cDNA, but also has good activity at high temperatures. High-temperature
performance is also very important for denaturation of RNA with secondary structure
(Life technologies, 2012).
14
Many studies have been used a real time RT-PCR developed in 2006, designed by
Jothikumar et al., (2006) to detect the 4 main genotypes of HEV in different types of
matrices (Crossan et al., 2012; Son et al., 2014). This broadly reactive TaqMan®
RT-
PCR assay that use primers that target a conserved region of the ORF 3, was proposed
for HEV detection in clinical and environmental samples but that have been also used
for food matrices (Bartolo et al., 2015).
1.5.2 Real-time PCR design
When a qPCR assay is designed, the most important parameters are the amplicon length
and the melting temperature (Tm) of the primers and probe. The optimal amplicon
length should be less than 150 bp, but it is advisable to reduce the length below 80 bp.
However, amplicons up to 300 bp amplify efficiently (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez,
2013). Shorter amplicons amplify more efficiently than longer ones and are more
tolerant to suboptimal reaction conditions. This is because they are more likely to be
denatured during the 92-95°C PCR step, allowing the probes and primers to compete
more effectively for binding to their complementary targets. As the extension rate of
Taq polymerase is between 30 and 70 bases per second (Jeffreys et al., 1988),
polymerization times as short as 5 s are sufficient to replicate such amplicon, making
amplification of artefacts less likely and reducing the time of the assay (Rodriguez-
Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
Primers
Good primer design is one of the most important parameters in real-time PCR. Primers
should be designed according to standard PCR guidelines. They should be specific for
the target sequence and be free of internal secondary structure (Life technologies, 2012).
Primer pairs should have compatible melting temperatures (within 5°C) and contain
approximately 50% guanine (G) and cytosine (C) content. Primers with high GC
content can form stable imperfect hybrids. Conversely, high AT (adenine and thiamine)
content depresses the Tm of perfectly matched hybrids. If possible, the 3’ end of the
primer should be GC rich (GC clamp) to enhance annealing of the end that will be
extended (Life technologies, 2012).
15
The primer pair sequences must be analyzed to avoid complementarity and
hybridization between primers (primer-dimers) (Life technologies, 2012).
Primers are generally used in the 50–300 nM range. Higher concentrations may promote
mispriming and accumulation of non-specific products, and lower concentrations may
lead to primer exhaustion, although target copy numbers will have been calculated well
before. Non-specific priming can be minimized by selecting primers that have only one
or two G/Cs within the 3′ last five nucleotides (Rodriguez-Lazaro and Hernandez,
2013). A relative instability at the 3′ ends makes primers less likely to hybridize
transiently causing non-specific extension (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
Probes
There are different types of specific-sequence fluorescent probes, and they can be
classified into two major groups, hydrolysis probes and hybridization probes, both types
being homologous to the internal region amplified by the two primers. The fluorescence
signal intensity can be related to the amount of PCR product (i) by a product-dependent
decrease of the quench of a reporter fluorophore or (ii) by an increase of the FRET
(Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer) from a donor to an acceptor fluorophore.
The FRET and the quench efficiency are strongly dependent on the distance between
the fluorophores. Therefore, the PCR-product-dependent change in the distance between
the fluorophores is used to generate the sequence-specific signals. Several different
formats can be used. In principle, all of them could function by a decrease of quench or
an increase of FRET; in practice, most formats are based on a decrease of quench
(Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
The most commonly used fluorescent reporter dyes are FAM (6-car-boxyfluorescein),
TET (tetrachloro-6-car-boxyfluorescein), JOE (2,7-dimethoxy-4,5-dichloro-6-carboxy-
fluorescein) or HEX (hexacholoro-6-carboxyfluorescein), and the most frequently used
quenchers are TAMRA (5-Carboxytetramethylrhodamine), DABCYL (4-((4-
(dimethylamino) phenyl)azo) benzoic acid) and Black Hole Quencher (BHQ). Many
commercial fluorophores have been developed by biotech companies such as VIC,
Alexa Fluor, or Yakina Yelow (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
The hydrolysis probes are cleaved when hybridized by the 5′-3 exonuclease activity of
particular DNA polymerases (Holland et al., 1991) during the elongation phase of
16
primers, yielding a real time measurable fluorescence emission directly proportional to
the concentration of the target sequence (Heid et al., 1996). The best known hydrolysis
probes are TaqMan® probes and TaqMan
® MGB (minor groove binder) probes, both
developed by Applied Biosystems (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
A TaqMan® probe is an oligonucleotide double-labelled with a reporter fluorophore at
the 5′ end (reporter dye) and with a quencher internally or at the 3′ end (quencher dye).
In addition, the probes must be blocked at their 3′- end to prevent the extension during
the annealing step. The TaqMan®
assay (Figure 3) uses three oligonucleotides. Two
conventional primers allow amplification of the product, to which the TaqMan® probe
will anneal (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013). The quencher dye absorbs the
fluorescence of the reporter dye due to its proximity, which permits FRET. When the
correct amplicon is amplified, the probe can hybridize to the target after the
denaturation step. It remains hybridized while the polymerase extends the primers until
it reaches the probe. Then, it displaces its 5′ end to hold it in a forked structure. The
enzyme continues to move from the now free end to the bifurcation of the duplex, where
cleavage takes place (Lyamichev et al. 1993). The quencher is hence released from the
fluorophore, which now fluoresces after excitation (Heid et al., 1996; Holland et al.,
1991; Gibson et al., 1996). As the polymerase will cleave the probe only while it
remains hybridized to its complementary strand, the temperature conditions of the
polymerization phase of the PCR must be adjusted to ensure probe binding. Most
probes have a Tm of around 70°C; therefore, the TaqMan® system uses a combined
annealing and polymerization step at 60-63°C. This ensures that the probe remains
bound to its target during the primer extension step. It also ensures maximum 5′-3′
exonuclease activity of the Taq and Tth DNA polymerases (Tombline et al. 1996).
The TaqMan® MGB probes are similar to TaqMan
® probes. They contain a non-
fluorescent quencher and an oligopeptide at the 3′ end. This oligopeptide is a DNA
MGB, with very high affinity for the minor groove of AT-rich double-stranded DNA
(Afonina et al., 1997). Addition of the MGB ligand significantly enhances duplex
stability. The shorter the probe, the greater the MGB contribution to the overall duplex
stability (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
17
Figure 3: Real-time PCR detection using TaqMan® probes 5’-3’ polymerase and exonuclease activity of
the Taq DNA polymerase (TAQ). R: reporter; Q: quencher (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
In contrast to hydrolysis probes, hybridization probes are not hydrolysed during PCR.
The fluorescence is generated by a change in its secondary structure during the
hybridization phase, which results in an increase of the distance separating the reporter
and the quencher dyes. The most relevant hybridization probes are those containing
hairpins (Molecular Beacons, Scorpion primers, etc.), and FRET hybridization probes
(Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
The Ta (annealing temperature) of the probe is also a critical parameter since
amplification primers are extended as soon as they bind to their targets. The
hybridization target sequence is rapidly masked with newly synthesized DNA.
Therefore, the Ta of the probes must be significantly greater (approximately 10°C) than
that of the primers. The presence of G at the 5′ end of the probe is to be avoided,
because it slightly quenches the reporter signal, even after probe cleavage. Furthermore,
the probe should contain more Cs than Gs; if this is not the case, the antisense probe
should be used. The probe should never overlap with, or be complementary to either of
the primers. The optimum concentration of fluorogenic probes will vary with the type of
probe, as it depends on background fluorescence: quenching of hydrolysis probes is
often below 100%, and thus they produce background fluorescence levels higher than
molecular beacons and FRET probes (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
(Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
18
Sybrgreen
Dye-based detection is performed via incorporation of a DNA binding dye in the PCR.
The dyes are non-specific and bind to any double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) generated
during amplification resulting in the emission of enhanced fluorescence. This allows the
initial DNA concentration to be determined with reference to a standard sample (Sigma
Aldrich, 2008).
DNA binding dyes bind reversibly, but tightly, to DNA by intercalation. Most real-time
PCR assays that use DNA binding dyes detect the binding of the fluorescent binding
dye SYBR® Green I, or the more stable binding dye SYBR
® Gold, to DNA (Sigma
Aldrich, 2008).
Prior to binding DNA, these dyes exhibit low fluorescence. During amplification,
increasing amounts of dye bind to the double stranded DNA products as they are
generated. For SYBR Green I, after excitation at 497 nm (SYBR Gold 495 nm), an
increase in emission fluorescence at 520 nm (SYBR Gold 537 nm) results during the
polymerization step followed by a decrease as DNA is denatured. Fluorescence
measurements are taken at the end of the elongation step of each PCR cycle to allow
measurement of DNA in each cycle. The Figure 4 illustrates how a dye based assay
works. Assays using SYBR Green I binding dye are less specific than conventional
PCR with gel detection because the specificity of the reaction is determined entirely by
the primers. However, additional specificity can be achieved and the PCR can be
verified by melt or dissociation curves (Sigma Aldrich, 2008).
19
Figure 4: Real-time PCR detection using Sybr Green® (Rodriguez-Lazaro & Hernandez, 2013).
Melt curves allow a comparison of the melting temperatures of amplification products.
Different dsDNA molecules melt at different temperatures, dependent upon a number of
factors including GC content, amplicon length, secondary and tertiary structure, and the
chemical formulation of the reaction chemistry. To produce melt curves, the final PCR
product is exposed to temperature gradient from about 50°C to 95°C while fluorescence
readouts are continually collected. This causes denaturation of all dsDNA. The point at
which the dsDNA melts into ssDNA is observed as a drop in fluorescence as the dye
dissociates. The melt curves are converted to distinct melting peaks by plotting the first
negative derivative of the fluorescence as a function of temperature (-dF/dT). Products
of different lengths and sequences will melt at different temperatures and are observed
as distinct peaks (Sigma Aldrich, 2008).
1.5.3 Analytical verification
Standard curve
A dilution series of known template concentrations can be used to establish a standard
curve for determining the initial starting amount of the target template in experimental
samples or for assessing the reaction efficiency. The log of each known concentration in
the dilution series (x-axis) is plotted against the Ct value for that concentration (y-axis).
From this standard curve, information about the performance of the reaction as well as
20
various reaction parameters (including slope, y-intercept, and correlation coefficient)
can be derived. The concentrations chosen for the standard curve should encompass the
expected concentration range of the target in the experimental samples (Life
technologies, 2012).
Efficiency
PCR amplification efficiency must be established by means of calibration curves,
because such calibration provides a simple, rapid, and reproducible indication of the
mean PCR efficiency, the analytical sensitivity, and the robustness of the assay (Bustin
et al., 2009).
A PCR efficiency of 100% corresponds to a slope of -3.32, as determined by the
following equation: Efficiency = 10(-1/slope)
-1. Ideally, the efficiency (E) of a PCR
reaction should be 100%, meaning the template doubles after each thermal cycle during
exponential amplification. The actual efficiency can give valuable information about the
reaction. Experimental factors such as the length, secondary structure, and GC content
of the amplicon can influence efficiency. Other conditions that may influence efficiency
are the dynamics of the reaction itself, the use of non-optimal reagent concentrations,
and enzyme quality, which can result in efficiencies below 90%. The presence of PCR
inhibitors in one or more of the reagents can produce efficiencies of greater than 110%.
A good reaction should have an efficiency between 90% and 110%, which corresponds
to a slope of between -3.58 and -3.10 (Life technologies, 2012).
Correlation coefficient (R2)
The R2 value of a standard curve represents how well the experimental data fit the
regression line, that is, how linear the data are. Linearity, in turn, gives a measure of the
variability across assay replicates and whether the amplification efficiency is the same
for different starting template copy numbers. A significant difference in observed Ct
values between replicates will lower the R2 value (BioRad, 2006).
Normalization (validation)
The primer-dimer formation should be checked by analyzing a well-documented sample
(reference material, e.g. proficiency testing sample) with melt-curve analysis, resulting
in one single peak. The size of the amplicon, analyzed by gel electrophoresis, should be
21
of the expected size. The product amplified must be analyzed by sequence analysis,
followed by a comparison of the target sequence with sequences in Genbank
(Raymaekers et al., 2009).
1.6 Internal Quality Control: Controls and inhibitors of PCR assays
Although the detection of enteric viruses in food is mainly done by molecular
techniques, there are several limitations. Polymerase chain reaction is considered a very
sensitive technique and is well recognized to be susceptible to cross-contamination
events within the laboratory and also to matrix interferences causing PCR inhibition
(Bustin et al., 2009) favoring false negative results and demonstrating the need for
proper quality control (Bosch et al., 2011).
In general, quality control of methods for detection of viruses in food samples implies
the use of adequate controls throughout the different steps that are considered critical
for correct detection (Stals et al., 2012). For molecular detection, the use of negative
and positive controls has been reviewed elsewhere.
During virus detection, false negative results, false positives, or both can occur. False
negative results are caused by inhibition and false positives can occur because of cross-
over contamination. The risk for cross-over contamination rises when using a highly
sensitive molecular method (Rijpens & Herman, 2002). For this reason, appropriate
positive and negative controls should be included (Stals et al, 2012).
Positive controls in the form of nucleic acids extracted from experimental samples are
useful for monitoring assay variation over time and are essential when calibration
curves are not performed in each run (Bustin et al., 2009).
A negative control is an aliquot of highly pure water used as template in a real-time RT-
PCR reaction to control for contamination in the real-time RT-PCR reagents (Bosch et
al., 2011). A negative control should be included in each PCR-based method for food
control. This is prepared in a separate tube and contains all PCR components with the
exception of any DNA template. The results of this reaction should be always negative.
An accidental positive result would indicate contamination of working solutions, tubes
or pipette tips by DNA (De Medici et al., 2015).
22
1.6.1 Process Controls
For monitoring of food supply chain for viruses is necessary that the analytical results
can be reliably verified. It is essential therefore that verification includes recognition of
analyses where the method has failed to perform correctly, as this may mask the
presence of a virus in a sample by a false-negative interpretation of the absence of a
signal (Diez-Valcarce et al., 2011). Incorrect performance can occur during the sample
treatment or the assay, and failed methods can be identified by the use of a sample
process control (SPC) (Diez-Valcarce et al., 2011).
A process control consists of adding a control virus to a (parallel) tested sample (Stals et
al., 2012). The addition of this control will verify that pre-amplification sample
treatment has worked correctly, and identify those samples in which pre-amplification
sample treatment has failed as well as enable the determination of the method's
efficiency of detection (Diez-Valcarce et al., 2011).
A process control should be used to indicate the effect of the food matrix on the virus
extraction efficiency (Stals et al., 2012). This may be very useful due to the great
variety of foods at risk for viral contamination (Stals et al., 2012). The use of an
appropriate process control has been also debated for the evaluation of the rate of
recovery in the quantitative detection of viruses in different food matrices (De Medici et
al., 2015). The murine norovirus 1 (MNV-1), the feline calicivirus, a genetically
modified mengovirus, and the MS2 bacteriophage have most frequently been used as
process control for detection of enteric viruses in food samples (Stals et al., 2012).
1.7 Inhibition of PCR assays
Although the detection of enteric viruses in food is mainly done by molecular
techniques, there are several limitations. The method is susceptible to inhibition,
favoring false negative results and demonstrating the need for proper quality control.
Many matrices from the food supply chains most susceptible to virus contamination like
soft fruit, salad vegetable and shellfish, are complex and difficult to treat, and can
furthermore contain substances which can inhibit nucleic acid amplification or reduce
amplification efficiency (Diez-Valcarce et al., 2011). The PCR inhibitors may act
through one or more of the following mechanisms: interference with the cell lysis step,
23
degradation or capture of the nucleic acids, or inactivation of the thermostable DNA
polymerase (Wilson, 1997).
Common inhibitors include various components food constituents (e.g., organic and
phenolic compounds, proteinase, glycogen, fats, and Ca2+
) (Tsai & Olson, 1992), and
environmental compounds (e.g., phenolic compounds, humic acids, and heavy metals)
in shellfish, acidic polysaccharides and glycogen (Lee et al., 1995; Wilson, 1997;
Blackstone et al., 2003; Kaufman et al., 2004).
For enteric RNA viruses, a reverse transcription stage is necessary, the capacity of an
extraction method to obtain a nucleic acid sample as pure as possible is a particularly
important point. Indeed, the high susceptibility of reverse transcriptase to inhibitory
substances is a major limiting factor in such methods (De Medici et al., 2015).
Several ways have been described to overcome this inhibition, such as the analysis of
samples dilutions, smaller sample sizes, adaptation of the PCR by, e.g., the addition of
Tween, BSA (Bovine Serum Albumin), or commercial reagents (Bosch et al., 2011)
providing a simple method that can facilitate amplification, albeit with reduced
sensitivity (Wilson, 1997).
The sample preparation and DNA/RNA extraction steps should aim at minimizing
inhomogeneity through achievement of a certain level of robustness and analyte quality
that should be mainly characterized by analyte purity and integrity (De Medici et al.,
2015).
24
2. OBJECTIVES
____________________________________________________________
25
2. OBJECTIVES
The aims of the present work were:
1. To search for the presence of HEV RNA in shellfish samples.
For this purpose, a total of 81 shellfish samples collected in coastal water of Peninsula
Iberian, Spain, were tested for the presence of HEV RNA using three in house real-time
RT-PCR approaches (two using probe and one using Sybr® Green) targeting a
conserved region within the ORF 3 of the HEV genome.
2. To characterize the HEV positive samples in order to evaluate their
genetic relationship with strains already known.
For that purpose the shellfish samples that showed to be positive for HEV RNA by real-
time RT-PCR (using probe and/or Sybr® Green) were tested by nested RT-PCR
targeting the ORF1 region within the HEV genome.
26
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
______________________________________________________________________
27
3. Material and Methods
3.1 Samples
In total 81 mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) batch processed (by the team of
Professor Jésus Romalde from the Microbiology and Parasitology Department,
University of Santiago Compostela, Spain), according to the developed standard method
ISO/TS 15216-1:2003 were studied. All the samples were spiked with mengovirus
before nucleic acid extraction, in order to evaluate the extraction efficiency.
It was the nucleic acid extracted from these samples that were used in the present study.
3.1.1 HEV and mengovirus
A stock solution of HEV (108 RNA copies/µl) was used to generate the standard curves
necessary to calculate the detection limit of real-time RT-PCR assay. It was also used
as a positive control in real-time RT-PCR reactions.
A stock solution of mengovirus (109
RNA copies/µl) was used to calculate the
extraction efficiency.
These stock viral solutions were kindly provided by Professor Romalde.
3.2 Real-time RT-PCR for detection of HEV RNA
Three in house real-time RT-PCR approaches were performed. Two using probe
(Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR and Kapa Fast Universal One-Step qRT-PCR) and one using
Syber Green (One Step Kapa Sybr®
Fast qPCR).
3.2.1 Primers and probe
The primers and probe used in real-time RT-PCR, target a conserved region in ORF3,
allowing the detection of different genotypes of HEV (Jothikumar et al., 2006). The
sequences of forward primer (JVHEVF) reverse primer (JVHEVR) and probe
(JVHEVP) are showed in Table 1. The TaqMan® probe contains a 5’ 6-carboxy
fluorescein fluorophore and 3’ black hole quencher. The sequences position corresponds
to 5261-5330 nt of the HEV genome.
28
Table 1: Primers and probe used for the detection of HEV RNA by real-time RT-PCR.
Target
virus
Name
primer/probe
Primer/probe Sequence 5´- 3´ Sense Sequence
position
Reference
HEV
JVHEVF GGTGGTTTCTGGGGTGAC + 5261-5330
Jothikumar
et al., (2006) JVHEVR AGGGGTTGGTTGGATGAA - 5261-5330
JVHEVP TGATTCTCAGCCCTTCGC 5285-5302
3.2.2 Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR
The Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR kit (Qiagen®, Hilden, Germany) was adapted for real-
time RT-PCR assay. In this assay the reverse transcription and the PCR amplification
of the cDNA is carried out consecutively in the same tube. . From now this kit will be
designated as Qiagen qRT-PCR.
The 81 shellfish samples (nucleic acid extracts) were tested undiluted and diluted 1:10
(in RNasefree and DNase free water) with the Qiagen qRT-PCR according to the
manufacturer's protocol. Briefly, 10 μl of each extract sample was added to the
mastermix consisting of 5 µl Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR buffer, 0.4 mM dNTP mix, 1 μl
Enzyme Mix, 250 nM of each primer and 100 nM of TaqMan® probe (Table 2). The
final reaction volume was 25 μl.
Table 2: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by Qiagen qRT-PCR.
Final concentration Volume for 25μl (µl)
Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR buffer (5X) 1x 5,0
Primer forward 250 nM 0,625
Primer reverse 250 nM 0,625
Probe 100 nM 1,25
RNase-free water - 5,5
dNTP mix 0.4 mM 1,0
Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR Enzyme Mix - 1,0
Template - 10,0
The thermal conditions consisted of an initial RT at 50 °C for 15 min followed by a
initial PCR activation at 95ºC for 10 min, and 45 cycles of sample denaturation at 95°C
for 15 sec and primer annealing-extension at 60ºC for 1 min (Table 3). All amplification
29
steps were performed in a real-time thermo cycler, MiniOpticon System (Bio-rad
Laboratories).
To minimize potential contamination mastermix and preparation the addition of the
samples were performed in separate rooms. In all the assays a positive control (HEV
RNA stock solution) and a negative control (RNase free water) were included. The
negative control were added at the same room as mastermix.
Table 3: Thermal conditions for Qiagen qRT-PCR.
Step Time/ temperature
Reverse transcriptase 15 min/50 °C
Initial PCR activation 10 min/95ºC
Denaturation 15 sec/95 °C
Annealing/extension 60 sec/60ºC
PCR cycles 45
Detection limit of the Qiagen qRT-PCR assay
In order to evaluate the detection limit of the Qiagen qRT-PCR a standard curve was
generated using a 10 fold dilution of the HEV stock solution (concentration of 109
RNA
copies/μl), ranging from 4x109 to 4x10
0 copies/reaction.
3.2.3 Kapa Fast Universal One-Step qRT-PCR
The Kapa Fast Universal One-Step qRT-PCR kit (Kapa Byosistems®,
Massachusetts,USA) is also an one-step real-time RT-PCR. From now this kit will be
designated as Kapa qRT-PCR .
Only 21 shellfish samples (nucleic acid extracts) were tested with Kapa qRT-PCR.
Samples were tested undiluted according to the manufacturer's protocol. Briefly, 5 μl of
each RNA extract sample was added to 15 μl of mastermix containing 250 nM of
primers and 100 nM of TaqMan®
probe, 0.4 μl of enzyme RT mix (Table 4).The final
reaction volume was 20 μl.
30
Table 4: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by Kapa qRT-PCR.
Final concentration Volume for 20μl (µl)
Kapa Fast Master Mix (2X) 1x 10,0
Primer forward 250 nM 0,1
Primer reverse 250 nM 0,1
Probe 100 nM 1,0
PCR grade water - 3,4
Kapa RT Mix (50x) 1x 0,4
Template - 5,0
The thermal conditions consisted of an initial RT at 42 °C for 5 min followed by a
initial PCR activation at 95ºC for 5 min, and 40 cycles of sample denaturation at 95°C
for 3 sec and primer annealing-extension at 60ºC for 20 sec (Table 5). All amplification
steps were performed in a real-time thermo cycler, MiniOpticon System (Bio-rad
Laboratories).
To minimize potential contamination mastermix and preparation the addition of the
samples were performed in separate rooms. In all the assays a positive control (HEV
RNA stock solution) and a negative control (RNase free water) were included. The
negative control were added at the same room as mastermix.
Table 5: Thermal conditions for Kapa qRT-PCR.
Step Time/Temperature
Reverse transcription 5 min/42ºC
PCR activation 5 min/95ºC
Denaturation 3 sec/95 °C
Annealing/extension 20 sec/60ºC
PCR cycles 40
Detection limit of the Kapa qRT-PCR assay
In order to evaluate the detection limit of the Kapa qRT-PCR a standard curve was
generated using a 10 fold dilution of the HEV stock solution (concentration of 108 RNA
copies/μl), ranging from 5x108 to 1x10
-1 copies/reaction.
31
3.2.4 One Step Kapa Sybr® Fast qPCR
The one Step Kapa Sybr® Fast qPCR (Kapa Biosystems, Massachusetts, USA), that is
also an one-step real-time RT-PCR was performed according to the manufacturer's
protocol. From now this kit will be designated as Kapa Sybr®
qPCR.
A total of 33 shellfish samples (nucleic acid extracts) were tested undiluted and diluted
(1:5) (in RNasefree and DNase free water) with the Kapa Sybr® qPCR according to the
manufacturer's protocol. Briefly, 5 μl of each RNA extract sample was carried out in a
15 μL reaction which consisted of 5 μL viral RNA, 10 μL Kapa Sybr Fast qPCR Master
Mix (2x), 300 nM of each forward and reverse primers and 0.4 μL of Kapa RT Mix.
The final reaction volume was 20 μl (Table 6).
Table 6: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by Kapa Sybr® qPCR.
Final concentration Volume for 20μl (µl)
Kapa Sybr Fast qPCR Master Mix (2X) 1x 10,0
Primer forward 300 nM 0,12
Primer reverse 300 nM 0,12
PCR grade water - 4,36
Kapa RT Mix (50x) 1x 0,4
Template - 5,0
The thermal conditions consisted of an initial RT at 42 °C for 5 min followed by a PCR
activation at 95ºC for 5 min, and 40 cycles of sample denaturation at 95°C for 3 sec and
a primer annealing-extension temperatures of 60ºC (condition A) or 64ºC (condition B)
for 20 sec (Table 7). These two temperatures of annealing-extension were used in order
to find the better amplification condition. Subsequently, a melting curve was recorded
by heating at 0.2 ºC/s up to 95ºC. All amplification steps were performed in a real-time
thermo cycler, CFX96 TouchTM
(Bio-rad Laboratories). The amplification and melting
curve data were collected and analyzed using the BioRad CFX managerTM
software.
To minimize potential contamination mastermix and preparation the addition of the
samples were performed in separate rooms. In all the assays a positive control (HEV
RNA stock solution) and a negative control (RNase free water) were included. The
negative control were added at the same room as mastermix.
Table 7: Thermal conditions tested for optimization of HEV RNA detection by Kapa
Sybr® qPCR.
32
Step Time/temperature
A
Time/temperature
B
Reverse transcriptase 5 min/42ºC 5 min/42ºC
PCR activation 5 min/95ºC 5 min/95ºC
Denaturation 3 sec/95 °C 3 sec/95 °C
Annealing/ Extension 20 sec/60ºC 20 sec/64ºC
PCR cycles 40 40
Two different annealing temperatures were used for optimization: A) 60ºC; B) 64ºC.
Detection limit of the Kapa Sybr® qPCR. assay
In order to evaluate the detection limit of the Kapa Sybr® qPCR. a standard curve was
generated using a 10 fold dilution of the HEV stock solution (concentration of 108 RNA
copies/μl), ranging from 5x104 to 5x10
-1 copies/reaction.
3.3 Nested RT-PCR for the detection of HEV RNA
3.3.1 Primers
The set of primers used target a highly conserved region of ORF1. The primers used for
the first round RT-PCR were HEV-cs and HEV-cas, and for the second round PCR was
HEV-csn and HEV-casn (Table 8). The first round consisted of an amplification of 470
bp and the second round consisted of an amplification of 330 bp within the previous
DNA segment.
Table 8: Primers used for detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR.
Step Name
primer
Primer Sequence 5´-3´ Sense Sequence
position
(bp)
Reference
RT-
PCR
HEV-cs TCGCGCATCACMTTYTTCCARAA +
469-472
Johne et
al., (2010)
HEV-cas GCCATGTTCCAGACDGTRTTCCA -
Nested-
PCR
HEV-csn TGTGCTCTGTTTGGCCCNTGGTTYC†G +
331-334 HEV-casn CCAGGCTCACCRGARTGYTTCTTCCA -
D=A, G or T; M=A or C; N=A, C, G or T; R=A or G; Y=C or T.
3.3.2 Nested RT-PCR
A nested RT-PCR assay was performed in 33 shellfish samples, undiluted, diluted (1:5)
and (1:10) (in RNasefree and DNase free water). The first round, RT-PCR, was
33
performed using Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR kit (Qiagen®, Hilden, Germany). Briefly, 5
μl of each sample was added to the mastermix consisting of 0.5 µM Qiagen OneStep
RT-PCR buffer, 0.4 mM dNTP mix, 1 μl Enzyme Mix, 500 nM of each forward and
reverse primers and 0.5 μl of RNase inhibitor (Table 9). The final reaction volume was
25 μl.
Table 9: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR - first round.
Final concentration Volume for 25μl (μl)
Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR buffer (5X) 1x 5,0
Primer foward 500nM 0,25
Primer reverse 500 nM 0,25
RNase free water - 12,0
dNTP mix 0.4 mM 1,0
Enzyme mix - 1,0
Rnase inhibitor ~20 U 0,5
Template - 5,0
The thermal conditions comprised 50ºC for 30 min and 95ºC for 15 min, followed by 40
cycles of denaturation at 94˚C for 60 sec, annealing at 52˚C for 60 sec, extension at
72˚C for 45 sec, with a final incubation at 74ºC for 5 min (Table 10).
To minimize potential contamination mastermix preparation and the adition of the
samples or amplicons were made in a separate room. To each run a negative control
(RNase free water), which was prepared at the same room as mastermix, and a positive
control (HEV RNA) were included.
Table 10: Thermal conditions for nested RT-PCR - first round.
Step Time/ Temperature
Reverse transcriptase 30 min/50 °C
PCR activation 15 min/95ºC
Denaturation 60 sec/94 °C
Annealing 60 sec/50ºC
Extension 60 sec/72ºC
Final Extension 10 min/72ºC
The second round was performed using Kapa Taq DNA Polymerase kit (Kapa
Byosistems®, Massachusetts, USA). Briefly, 5 μl of the amplicons obtained in the fisrt
round RT-PCR were added to the mastermix consisting of 0.5 µM 5 x KAPA Taq
34
buffer A, 0.5U of KAPA Taq DNA Polymerase, 10 mM of dNTP mix, 0.5 μM of
forward and reverse primers The final reaction volume was 25 μl (Table 11).
Table 11: Mastermix for detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR - second round.
Final concentration Volume for 25μl (μl)
KAPA Taq buffer A (10 x) 1 X 2,5
KAPA dNTP mix 0.3 mM 0,5
KAPA Taq DNA Polymerase 5U/µl 0,1
Primer foward 0.5 µM 0,2
Primer reverse 0.5 µM 0,2
Rnase-free water - 16,5
Template - 5,0
The thermal conditions comprised 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 40 cycles of sample
denaturation at 95°C for 30 sec, and then by primer annealing at 50ºC for 30 sec,
extension for 30 sec at 72ºC and final extension at 72ºC for 10 min (Table 12).
All amplification steps were performed in T100TM Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad
Laboratories).
Table 12: Thermal conditions for nested RT-PCR - second round.
Step Time/ Temperature
Initial denaturation 3 min/95 °C
Denaturation 30 sec/95ºC
Annealing 30 sec/50 °C
Extension 30 sec/72ºC
Final extension 10 min/72ºC
3.4 Electrophoresis and purification of amplified products
The final amplified products, obtained in the nested RT-PCR, were separated by
electrophoresis using 1.5% agarose gel (Seakem LE Agarose, USA) with Midori Green
Advanced DNA stain (Nippon Genetics, Germany) for 45 min., 80V. A 100 bp ladder
(GRS Ladder 100bp Grisp®, Portugal) was used. The results were visualized with the
Molecular Imager Gel Doc XR+System and Image Lab Software (Bio-Rad®, USA).
35
The amplified products obtained in one step and nested RT-PCR with the expected size
(~330 bp) were recovered from agarose gel and purified with the GRS PCR and Gel
Band Purification Kit (GRisp, Porto, Portugal), according to the manufacture’s
instruction.
3.4.1 Sequencing of HEV nested RT-PCR products
The purified amplicons were sent to Stab Vida (Caparica, Portugal) to be sequenced,
along with the corresponding primers, diluted to 10pmol/μl.
Editing and multiple alignments of sequences were performed using BioEdit version 2.1
(Ibis Biosciences, California, USA), and they were compared with all HEV sequences
of different genotype (1-4) available from GenBank with the Basic Alignment Search
Tool (BLAST). Phylogenetic analysis was performed using MEGA version 4.0 (Tamura
et al., 2007).
3.5 Real-time RT-PCR for mengovirus
3.5.1 Primers and probe
Primers and probe used, target a conserved region 5’ noncoding region of viral RNA of
mengovirus. The sequences of the forward primer Mengo 110, reverse primer Mengo
210 and the Mengo 147 probe, labeled at 5’ end with 6-carboxy fluorescein fluorophore
(FAM), and modified at the 3’ end with the addition of a minor groove binder (MGB)
are showed in Table 13. Both primers and probe were provided by Professor Romalde.
Table 13: Primers and probe used for mengovirus detection.
Target virus Name
primer/probe
Primer/probe Sequence 5´- 3´ Sense Reference
Mengo 110 GCGGGTCCTGCCGAAAGT +
Pinto et al.,
(2009)
Mengovirus Mengo 209 GAAGTAACATATAGACAGACGCACA -
Mengo 147 ATCACATTACTGGCCGAAGC
36
3.5.2 Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR
The Qiagen Onestep RT-PCR kit (Qiagen®,Hilden, Germany) was used. Only 23
shellfish samples (nucleic acid extracts) were tested. Briefly, 5 μl of each extract sample
undiluted and diluted 1:10 (in RNasefree and DNase free water) was added to 20 μl of
mastermix containing 5 µl Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR buffer, 0.4 mM dNTP mix, 1μl
Enzyme Mix, 900 nM forward primer, 500nM reverse primer and 450 nM TaqMan®
probe (Table 14). The final reaction volume was 25 μl.
Table 14: Mastermix for detection of mengovirus by Qiagen qRT-PCR.
Final concentration Volume for 25μl (µl)
Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR buffer (5X) 1X 5,0
Primer forward 900 nM 2,250
Primer reverse 500 nM 1,250
Probe 100nM 450 nM 1,125
RNase-free water - 8,375
dNTP mix 0.4 mM 1,0
Qiagen OneStep RT-PCR Enzyme Mix - 1,0
Template 5,0
The thermal conditions were for the reverse transciption 55˚C during 60 min, PCR
activation at 95˚C for 5 min, denaturation at 95˚C for 15 sec, annealing at 60˚C during
60 sec and extension at 65˚C for 60 sec (Table 15). All amplification steps were
performed on a real-time thermo cycler, MiniOpticon System (Bio-rad Laboratories).
The denaturation, annealing and extention conditions were repeated for 45 cycles. To
minimize potential contamination mastermix and preparation the addition of the
samples were performed in separate rooms. In all the assays a positive control
(mengovirus RNA stock solution) and a negative control (RNase free water) were
included. The negative control were prepared at the same room as mastermix.
Table 15: Thermal conditions for detection of mengovirus by Qiagen qRT-PCR.
Step Time/ Temperature
Reverse transcriptase 60 min/55 °C
PCR activation 5 min/95ºC
Denaturation 15 sec/95 °C
Annealing 60 sec/60ºC
Extension 60 sec/65ºC
37
3.5.2 Evaluation of viral mengovirus RNA extraction efficiency
The efficiency of extraction was determined for each sample, by comparing its Ct value
with the Ct value obtained with mengovirus stock solution (positive control) in the same
real-time RT-PCR assay and the difference (ΔCt) was used to calculate the percentage
by using the formula 100e-0.6978ΔCt
(Le Guyader et al., 2009).
38
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
39
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Detection of HEV RNA in shellfish by Qiagen qRT-PCR
4.1.1 Detection limit of the Qiagen qRT-PCR
The detection limit of Qiagen qRT-PCR was established using a 10 fold serial dilution
of the HEV stock solution (concentration of 108 RNA copies/μl), ranging from 1x10
9 to
1x100 copies/reaction. The number of HEV RNA copies and the correspondent Ct
values of each dilution are shown in Table 16. The correspondent amplification curves
of the dilution series can be observed in Figure 5 A.
Table 16: Ct values and number of copies of HEV RNA by Qiagen qRT-PCR.
HEV RNA copies/µl
(Stock solution)
HEV RNA copies/ copies/reaction (25µl)
HEV RNA copies/μl
(25µl)
Ct
1x108 1x10
9 4x10
7 10.16
1x107 1x10
8 4x10
6 12.79
1x106 1x10
7 4x10
5 16.36
1x105 1x10
6 4x10
4 20.05
1x104 1x10
5 4x10
3 23.2
1x103 1x10
4 4x10
2 27.37
1x102 1x10
3 4x10
1 30.87
1x101 1x10
2 4x10
0 34.11
1x100 1x10
1 4x10
-1 36.27
1x10-1
1x100 4x10
-2 33.62
Ct = Threshold cycle. Ten µl of each dilution, obtained from stock solution, in a total volume of 25µl was
tested.
As observed in table 16 and Figure 5 A the Ct value 33.62 of the concentration of 1
copy/reaction is lower than the one expected for a number of copies smaller than the 10
copies/reaction that showed a Ct of 36.27. This indicates that we are at the limit of the
detection of the assay.
The standard curve, that was performed in order to verify the efficiency of the
amplification of Qiagen qRT-PCR, was constructed without the value of the
concentration 1 copy/reaction for the present reason (Figure 5 B). An amplification
efficiency of 96% was obtained which is between the acceptable ranges of 90%-110%.
Based on all this results the limit of detection established for the Qiagen qRT-PCR was
10 copies/reaction HEV RNA, corresponding to the Ct of 36.27.
40
Hence for Qiagen qRT-PCR samples were considered:
i) Positive when they presented a Ct value < 36.27 (Ct value of the limit of
detection) associated to an exponential amplification curve;
ii) Negative when no amplification was observed or a Ct value was associated to
a non-exponential amplification curve;
iii) Above limit of detection (above LD), when sample Ct value was > 36.27 and
were associated to exponential amplification curve. These samples were interpreted
with caution because this high Ct value could be due to the presence of very low
concentrations of HEV RNA.
Figure 5: Establishment of the Qiagen qRT-PCR Standard curve for HEV. Standard curve was generated
using a 10 fold dilution of a HEV RNA stock solution, ranging from 1x109 to 1x10
0 copies/ tube (25μl).
A) Amplification curves of the dilution series (RFU- Relative fluorescence units). B) Standard curve with
the Ct plotted against the log of the starting quantity of template for each dilution. The equation for the
regression line is shown above the graph. The amplification efficiency was 96%.
A
B
41
4.1.2 HEV RNA detection in shellfish by Qiagen qRT-PCR
All the 81 RNA extracts from shellfish were tested for the presence of HEV RNA using
Qiagen qRT-PCR. Two different experiments performed in different days. The results
of these experiments are summarized in table 17. Samples were tested undiluted and
diluted 1:10. Dilution of shellfish samples is recommended since if there is presence of
derivatives inhibitors from extraction procedure and purification step nucleic acid
(guanidine or ethanol salts, for example), these inhibitors might affect the results,
producing late amplification or no amplification at all. Also, the low quantity of virus
in shellfish renders them a difficult and variable matrix that is also known to cause
amplification inhibition (Lowther et al., 2008). Some substances present in shellfish
tissue, like polysaccharides and glycogen (Atmar et al., 1993) can affect the removal of
the virus and its subsequent concentration, extraction of virus nucleic acids, and/or
inhibit nucleic acid amplification.
From the total of 81 shellfish samples tested, 20 were considered positive, 47 were
negative and 13 above LD. Concerning the positive samples B4, B38 and B53, they
gave only a positive result when tested undiluted, showing no amplification when tested
diluted. This could be due to a small quantity of HEV RNA that could not be detected
after the dilution of sample (less than 10 copies of HEV RNA/tube).
Samples B8, B21, B37, B43 and B59 showed Ct values above the limit of detection
(>36.27 ) when tested undiluted but no amplification when tested diluted. These
samples were not considered positive since we can not guarantee that their high Ct
values were due to the presence of a very small quantity of HEV RNA (not
detectectable the diluted sample) or due to a nonspecific reaction.
Samples B22 and B58 presented only a positive Ct value when tested diluted, and no
amplification without dilution. The absence of amplification when tested undiluted
could be explained by the presence of inhibitors. The presence of inhibition could also
explain the high Ct values observed with the diluted samples B51 (12.08) and B54
(18.41) when compared with the Ct of the diluted samples, 26.56 and 39.58,
respectively. The contrary would be expected since the undiluted samples would have
more HEV RNA and consequently a lower Ct value.
42
Table 17: Ct values and interpretation of results of undiluted and diluted shellfish
samples for the detection of HEV RNA by qiagen qRT-PCR. Samples 1st Experiment 2 nd Experiment Interpretation
Undiluted Diluted 1:10 Undiluted Diluted 1:10
Ct Ct B1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Negative
B2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Negative
B3 N/A N/A - - Negative
B4 30.34 N/A - - Positive
B5 N/A N/A - - Negative
B6 N/A N/A N/A - Negative
B7 N/A N/A - - Negative
B8 43.99 N/A - - Above LD
B9 N/A 40.34 - - Above LD
B10 N/A 41.58 - - Above LD
B11 4.77 25.94 - - Positive
B12 N/A N/A - - Negative
B13 N/A N/A - - Negative
B14 N/A N/A - - Negative
B15 N/A 5.87 N/A N/A Negative
B16 N/A N/A - - Negative
B17 N/A N/A - - Negative
B18 N/A N/A - - Negative
B19 N/A N/A - - Negative
B20 16.75 - - 25.98 Positive
B21 45.48 N/A - - Above LD
B22 N/A 32.52 N/A N/A Positive
B23 N/A N/A - - Negative
B24 21.97 34.19 - - Positive
B25 N/A N/A - - Negative
B26 39.85 - 31.04 - Positive
B27 N/A N/A - - Negative
B28 N/A N/A - - Negative
B29 N/A N/A N/A N/A Negative
B30 N/A N/A - - Negative
B31 N/A N/A - - Negative
B32 N/A N/A - - Negative
B33 N/A 38.79 - - Above LD
B34 N/A N/A - - Negative
B35 N/A N/A - - Negative
B36 N/A N/A - - Negative
B37 43.44 N/A N/A - Above LD
B38 22.96 N/A - - Positive
B39 24.61 30.28 - - Positive
B40 N/A N/A - - Negative
B41 N/A N/A - - Negative
B42 N/A N/A - - Negative
B43 37.63 N/A N/A - Above LD
B44 N/A N/A - - Negative
B45 N/A N/A - - Negative
B46 N/A N/A - - Negative
B47 N/A N/A - - Negative
B48 N/A N/A - - Negative
B49 N/A N/A - - Negative
B50 N/A N/A - - Negative
B51 26.56 12.08 - - Positive
B52 N/A 43.46 - - Above LD
B53 28.84 N/A - - Positive
B54 39.58 18.41 - - Positive
B55 17.53 34.63 - 42.64 Positive
B56 7.98 6.82 - - Negative
B57 N/A 4.18 - - Negative
B58 N/A 24.94 - - Positive
B59 44.37 N/A - - Above LD
B60 7.96 9.07 - - Negative
B61 31.81 - - - Positive
B62 29.62 29.93 - - Positive
B63 42.04 40.36 N/A - Above LD
B64 4.42 1.63 - N/A Negative
B65 30.99 - - - Positive
B66 42.36 42.14 - - Above LD
B67 30.89 - - - Positive
B68 44.02 - N/A - Above LD
B69 38.99 45.49 - - Above LD
B70 13.58 26.20 - - Positive
B71 N/A N/A - - Negative
B72 N/A N/A - - Negative
B73 N/A N/A - - Negative
B74 34.01 33.11 - - Positive
B75 4.01 3.86 N/A N/A Negative
B76 N/A N/A - - Negative
B77 N/A N/A - - Negative
B78 N/A N/A - - Negative
B79 N/A N/A - - Negative
B80 25.10 37.14 - - Positive
Ct=Threshold cycle, N/A=no amplification; LD= limit of detection
i) positive when they presented a Ct value lower than the limit of detection (36.27); ii) negative when no amplification was observed
or presented a very low Ct (<10) value associated to a non-exponential amplification; iii) above limit of detection (above LD) when their Ct value was > 36.27..
43
4.2 Detection of HEV RNA in shellfish by Kapa qRT-PCR
4.2.1 Detection limit of Kapa qRT-PCR
The detection limit of Kapa qRT-PCR was established using a 10 fold serial dilution of
the HEV stock solution (concentration of 108 RNA copies/μl), ranging from 5x10
8 to
5x10-1
copies/reaction. The number of HEV RNA copies and the correspondent Ct
values of each dilution are shown in Table 18. The correspondent amplification curve of
the dilution series can be observed in Figure 6 A.
Table 18: Ct values and number of copies of HEV RNA by Kapa qRT-PCR.
Ct= Threshold cycle; N/A= no amplification. Five µl of each dilution in a total volume of 20µl was tested.
As observed in table 18 and Figure 6 A the Ct value 35.43 of the concentration of 5x102
copy/reaction indicates that we are at the limit of the detection of the assay.
The standard curve was performed in order to verify the efficiency of the amplification
of Kapa RT-PCR (Figure 6 B). For the construction of the standard curve the
concentrations of 5x101, 5x10
0 and 5x10
-1 copies/µl that presented no amplification
were not included. An amplification of 86% efficiency was obtained which is out of the
acceptable range of 90%-110%.
The limit of detection established for the Kapa qRT-PCR was 500 copies/reaction of
HEV RNA, corresponding to the Ct of 35.43. That is much lower than the number of
copies the Qiagen qRT-PCR can detect (10 copies HEV RNA). This could be in part
explained by lower amplification efficiency presented of Kapa qRT-PCR (86%).
Hence for Kapa qRT-PCR samples were considered:
HEV RNA copies/µl
(Stock solution)
HEV RNA
copies/reaction (20µl)
HEV RNA
copies/μl (20µl)
Ct
1x108
5x108
2,5x107
12.73
1x107
5x107
2,5x106
15.11
1x106
5x106
2,5x105
18.76
1x105
5x105
2,5x104
21.86
1x104
5x104
2,5x103
25.26
1x103
5x103
2,5x102
29.65
1x102
5x102
2,5x101
35.43
1x101
5x101
2,5x100
N/A
1x100
5x100
2,5x10-1
N/A
1x10-1
5x10-1
2,5x10-2
N/A
44
i) Positive when they presented a Ct value < 35.43 (Ct value of the limit of detection);
ii) Negative when no amplification was observed;
iii) Above limit of detection (above LD) when their Ct value was >35.43. These
samples were interpreted with caution because this high Ct value could be due to the
presence of very low concentrations of HEV RNA.
Comparing the limit of detection of Qiagen and Kapa qRT-PCR, the Qiagen presented
higher sensitivity, with a limit of detection of 10 copies HEV RNA/µl versus Kapa
qRT-PCR, which showed a limit of detection of 500 copies HEV RNA/µl.
Figure 6: Establishment of the Kapa qRT-PCR standard curve for HEV. A standard curve was generated
using a 10 fold dilution of a HEV RNA solution ranging from 5x108 to 5x10
-1 copies/μl. A) Amplification
curves of the dilution series (RFU- Relative fluorescence units). B) Standard curve with the Ct plotted
against the log of the starting quantity of template for each dilution. The equation for the regression line
and the R2 value are shown above the graph. The amplification efficiency was 86%.
A
B
45
4.2.2 HEV RNA detection in shellfish by Kapa qRT-PCR
Only 22 shellfish samples were tested by Kapa qRT-PCR. They were all tested
undiluted. The interpretation of results obtained with Kapa qRT-PCR are summarized in
Table 19.
Table 19: Ct values and interpretation of undiluted shellfish samples for the detection
of HEV RNA by Kapa probe qRT-PCR.
Samples Undiluted
Ct
Interpretation
B8 33.40 Positive
B9 37.02 Above LD
B20 35.08 Positive
B22 N/A Negative
B23 N/A Negative
B33 33.38 Positive
B34 N/A Negative
B52 34.53 Positive
B55 30.09 Positive
B57 N/A Negative
B58 34.95 Positive
B59 39.43 Above LD
B61 33.18 Positive
B62 30.26 Positive
B63 37.27 Above LD
B64 N/A Negative
B65 33.01 Positive
B66 36.30 Above LD
B67 31.52 Positive
B68 39.93 Above LD
B69 34.96 Positive
B70 25.98 Positive
Ct=Threshold cylce; N/A= no amplification, LD= limit of detection
i) positive when they presented a Ct value lower than the limit of detection (35.43); ii) negative when no
amplification was observed iii) above limit of detection (above LD) when their Ct value was >35.43.
From the total of 22 shellfish samples tested, 12 (54.5%) were positive, 5 (4.54%) were
negative and 5 (4.54%) were above LD.
46
When we compare the final results of the 22 samples obtained by Qiagen and Kapa
qRT-PCR (Table 20) it can be observed that only 8 samples were positive by both
assays namely B20, B55, B58, BB61, B62, B65, B67, B69 and B70. Samples B8, B33,
B52 and B69, presented Ct values above the limit of detection when tested by Qiagen
qRT-PCR, but were positive using Kapa qRT-PCR. This shows how important it is to
be caution with the interpretation of above LD samples. The high Ct value of sample B8
that led to an interpretation of “above LD” was really due to the presence of low
quantity of copies of HEV RNA.
Table 20: Comparison of the interpretation of results of 22 shellfish samples tested by
both Qiagen and Kapa qRT-PCR.
Samples Interpretation* Interpretation
B8 Above LD
Positive
B9 Above LD Above LD
B20 Positive Positive
B22 Positive Negative
B23 Negative Negative
B33 Above LD Positive
B34 Negative Negative
B52 Above LD Positive
B55 Positive Positive
B57 Negative Negative
B58 Positive Positive
B59 Above LD Above LD
B61 Positive Positive
B62 Positive Positive
B63 Above LD Above LD
B64 Negative Negative
B65 Positive Positive
B66 Above LD Above LD
B67 Positive Positive
B68 Above LD Above LD
B69 Above LD Positive
B70 Positive Positive
*These results were interpreted after considering also the Ct with the samples diluted 1:10. Ct= Threshold cycle,
N/A= no amplification; LD= limit of detection; N/C= not conclusive.
47
4.3 Detection of HEV RNA in shellfish by Kapa Sybr® qPCR
4.3.1 Kapa Sybr® qPCR Optimization
A previous optimization of this Kapa Sybr® qPCR was performed. Two different
annealing-extension temperature 60ºC and 64ºC were used. As can be observed the
increase of the annealing temperature from 60ºC (Figure 7 A) to 64ºC (Figure 7 B) led
to the disappearance of the formation of primer dimers responsible for the amplification
curve detected in the negative control.
Hence the best annealing temperature was 64ºC and all the experiments of detection of
HEV RNA in shellfish used this temperature.
Figure 7: Optimization for HEV detection by Kapa Sybr® qPCR. Amplification and melting curves
analysis. Amplification plot curve of HEV ten-fold serial dilutions (107to 10
3 RNA copies) of HEV RNA
stock solution, using primers concentration of 300nM and annealing temperature of 60ºC (A) and 64ºC
(B); Melting curve with annealing temperature of 64ºC (C).
A
B
48
The figure 8 is represented the melting curves of the serial dilutions with annealing
temperature of 64ºC.
Although the primers proposed by Jothikumar et al., (2006) were designed to work with
probes, these primers showed to work well also with Sybr Green, as demonstrated by
the melting curve (Figure 8). All amplified products presented the same expected
melting temperature of 79 º C.
Figure 8: Melting curves of the serial dilutions with annealing temperature of 64ºC. The melting curves
shows that the melting peak of the serial dilutions (107 to10
3) was at 79ºC.
The annealing of the primers to their target sequences is critical step in a PCR reaction.
It has to be performed at the right temperature for the primers to anneal efficiently to
their targets, while preventing nonspecific annealing and primer-dimer formation
(Taylor et al., 2011). Optimization of reaction conditions can reduce primer-dimer
formation and increase the efficiency and specificity of the amplification process
(Raymaekers et al., 2009).
49
4.3.2 Detection limit of Kapa Sybr® qPCR
The detection limit of Kapa Sybr® qPCR was established using a 10 fold serial dilution
of the HEV stock solution (concentration of 108 RNA copies/μl), ranging from 5x10
5 to
5x100
copies/reaction. The number of HEV RNA copies and the correspondent Ct
values of each dilution are shown in Table 21. The correspondent amplification curves
of the dilution series are in Figure 9 A.
Table 21: Ct values and melting curve of HEV RNA stock solution by Kapa Sybr®
qPCR.
HEV RNA
copies/μl (Stock
solution)
HEV RNA
copies/reaction
(20μl)
HEV RNA
copies/μl
(20μl)
Ct Melting curve
temperatre
1x105 5x10
5 2,5x10
4 21.27 79,00
1x104 5x10
4 2,5x10
3 24.54 79,00
1x103 5x10
3 2,5x10
2 28.19 79,00
1x102 5x10
2 2,5x10
1 31.10 78,80
1x101 5x10
1 2,5x10
0 35.49 78.80
1x100 5x10
0 2,5x10
-1 37.44 78,60
Ct= Threshold cycle; N/A= no amplification. Five µl of each dilution in a total volume of 20µl was
tested.
A standard curve was also performed in order to verify the efficiency of the
amplification of Kapa Sybr® qPCR (Figure 9 B). For the construction of the standard
curve the concentration of all dilution series were included. An amplification efficiency
of 100% was obtained.
The limit of detection established for Kapa Sybr® qPCR was 5 copies of HEV
RNA/reaction corresponding to the Ct of 37.44.
Hence for Kapa Sybr® qPCR samples were considered:
i) Positive when they presented Ct < 37.44 and a melt temperature ranging
between 78,5º C - 79ºC.
ii) Negative when no amplification was observed or when an amplification was
present but with a melt temperature different from 78,5º C - 79ºC.
50
Figure 9: Amplification curves of standards stock solution Kapa Sybr® qPCR. A standard curve was
generated using a 10 fold dilution of a HEV RNA stock solution ranging from 5x105 to 5x10
-1 copies/μl).
A) Amplification curves of the dilution series. B) Standard curve with the Ct plotted against the log of the
starting quantity of template for each dilution. The calculated amplification efficiency was 100%; R2:
0,993 and slope: -3.309.
A
B
51
4.3.3 HEV RNA detection in shellfish by Kapa Sybr® qPCR
A total of 33 extracts from shellfish were tested undiluted and diluted (1:5), for the
presence of HEV. The Ct values, the melt temperature and the interpretation of results
shellfish samples are summarized in Table 22.
Table 22: Ct values, melt temperatures and interpretation of results of undiluted and
diluted 1:5 shellfish samples by Kapa Sybr® qPCR for the detection of HEV RNA.
Samples
Undiluted
Diluted 1:5
Ct Melt temperature (ºC) Result Ct Melt temperature (ºC) Result B8 N/A None Negative 35.26 80,40 Negative
B9 N/A None Negative 36.05 78,80 Positive
B10 N/A None Negative 34.65 None Negative
B11 N/A None Negative 36.97 79,00 Positive
B20 N/A None Negative 37.32 72,40 Negative
B21 N/A None Negative 35.45 79,40 Negative
B23 N/A None Negative 39.01 77,20 Negative
B24 N/A None Negative 35.78 81,80 Negative
B33 N/A None Negative 38.92 77,60 Negative
B34 N/A None Negative 38.86 77,20 Negative
B38 N/A None Negative 37.24 73,40 Negative
B39 N/A None Negative 38.44 78,40 Negative
B43 N/A None Negative 37.60 78,80 Positive
B51 N/A None Negative N/A None Negative
B52 N/A None Negative N/A None Negative
B53 N/A None Negative 39.89 72,00 Negative
B54 N/A None Negative N/A None Negative
B55 N/A None Negative 38.74 78,60 Positive
B58 N/A None Negative 34.25 78,60 Positive
B59 N/A None Negative 36.11 72.40 Negative
B60 N/A None Negative 38.49 72,20 Negative
B61 N/A None Negative 34.31 78,60 Positive
B62 N/A None Negative N/A None Negative
B63 N/A None Negative 33.27 78,80 Positive
B65 N/A None Negative 35.31 82,00 Negative
B66 N/A None Negative 37.10 77,60 Negative
B67 N/A None Negative 37.24 72,60 Negative
B68 N/A None Negative 38.13 79,00 Positive
B69 N/A None Negative 36.84 79,00 Positive
B70 N/A None Negative 37.46 78,40 Negative
B74 N/A None Negative 35.65 78,40 Negative
B80 38.09 78,60 Positive 38.20 72,60 Negative
Ct=Threshold cycle; N/A= no amplification. Positive: when they presented Ct < 37.44 and a melt temperature
ranging between 78,5º C to 79ºC. Negative when no amplification was observed or even with amplification but with
melt temperature different from 78,5º C to 79ºC.
52
From the 33 shellfish samples tested undiluted, only one sample (B80) was considered
to be positive. Althouhg with a late amplification (Figure 10 A) its Ct value (38.09)
was above of the limit of detection (37.44), observing the melt curve is possible to see
that the sample B80 had the expected melting temperature (78,6ºC) of the HEV RNA
control (Figure 10 B).
A
B
Figure 10: Amplification curves of shellfish samples tested undiluted by Kapa Sybr® qPCR. A)
Amplification curves of the dilution series and sample B80 the single one that amplified. B) Melt
curve showing the melt temperatures of serial dilutions and the sample B80.
53
From the 33 shellfish samples tested diluted, 10 samples (30,3%) were considered
positive namely B9, B11, B58, B61, B63, B67, B80 since these samples presented a Ct
< 37.44. Samples B43 (Ct=37.60), B55 (Ct=38.74) and B68 (Ct=38.13), were also
considered positive. Although their Ct of samples were slightly above the Ct limit of
detection (37.44) and melt temperature were around 79 ºC (a difference of 0,5ºC in the
melting temperature was acceptable.
Analyzing the Ct values of the diluted samples it can be observed that almost all showed
amplification (Table 22). However the melting temperatures of the majority of samples
are different from the expected 79ºC correspondent to the specific amplified products.
The presence of inhibitors in undiluted samples was also observed in this assay. In fact
the samples B8, B9, B11, B43, B55, B61, B68, and B69 show no amplification when
tested undiluted but show a specific amplification when tested diluted.
The figure 11, shows the amplification curves (A) and melt temperature curves (B) of
the shellfish samples tested diluted that were considered positive (B8, B9, B11, B43,
B55, B61, B68, and B69) since they all exhibit a melting temperatures around 79ºC.
54
A
B
Figure 11: Amplification plot of samples tested diluted by Kapa Sybr® qPCR that were
considered positive. A) Amplification curves of the dilution series and shellfish samples
considered positive (B9, B11, B43, B55, B58, B61, B63, B67, B68 and B80). B) Melting
curve showing the melting temperature of the HEV RNA dilutions and the samples
considered positives.
55
4.4 Detection of HEV RNA by nested RT-PCR
A total of 33 potential positive samples, based on the results of real-time RT-PCR, were
tested by conventional nested RT-PCR. This will allow the confirmation of presence of
HEV RNA and by sequences of the expected amplified products product (330 bp).
Samples were also tested undiluted and diluted (1:5 and 1:10) in order to overcome the
presence of inhibitors. The results are presented in Table 23.
Table 23: Results of the detection of HEV RNA in shellfish samples by nested RT-PCR
Sample Undiluted Diluted 1:5 Diluted 1:10
B8 Negative Positive Negative
B9 Negative Negative Negative
B10 Negative Positive Negative
B11 Negative Positive Negative
B20 Negative Negative Negative
B21 Negative Negative Negative
B23 Negative Negative Negative
B24 Negative Negative Negative
B33 Negative Negative Negative
B34 Negative Positive Negative
B38 Negative Negative Negative
B39 Negative Negative Negative
B43 Negative Negative Negative
B51 Negative Negative Negative
B52 Negative Negative Negative
B53 Negative Negative Negative
B54 Negative Negative Negative
B55 Negative Positive Negative
B58 Negative Negative Negative
B59 Negative Negative Negative
B60 Negative Negative Negative
B61 Negative Negative Negative
B62 Negative Negative Negative
B63 Negative Negative Negative
B64 Negative Negative Negative
B65 Negative Negative Negative
B66 Positive Negative Negative
B67 Negative Negative Negative
B68 Negative Negative Negative
B69 Negative Negative Negative
B70 Negative Negative Negative
B74 Negative Negative Negative
B80 Negative Negative Negative
When samples were tested undiluted, only sample B66 presented the expected amplicon
of 330bp (Figure 11 A), but when tested diluted (1:5) five samples namely B8, B10,
B11, B34 and B55 (Figure 11 B and C) showed also the 330bp band. These results
show once again how important is to test the samples diluted to avoid underestimation
of virus positive samples due to the presence of inhibitors. However samples must be
56
tested undiluted to avoid underestimation of samples with low viral concentration.
Sample B66 is a good example of sample that would be missed if it was only tested
undiluted.
A - Shellfish samples tested undiluted
B - Shellfish samples tested diluted (1:5)
C - Shellfish samples tested diluted (1:5)
Figure 12: Electrophoresis gel of amplified products after nested RT-PCR shellfish samples. A)
Samples tested undiluted. B66 show the expected amplicon of 330bp. B) and C) Samples tested
diluted (1:5) samples (B8, B10, B11, B34 and B55) show the expected amplicon of 330bp. C+:
positive control.
57
A final comparison of the results obtained by nested RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR
were made (Table 24). It can be observed that only sample B11 and B55 were positive
in all the assays tested. Some samples like B34, B8, B10, B66 that were negative or
above the limit of detection by real-time RT-PCR assays were positive with nested RT-
PCR. This could be explained by the presence of low HEV RNA concentration in the
samples. On the contrary the samples B20, B58, B65, B67, B70 and 80 that were
positive in at least two real-time RT-PCR assays were negative with nested RT-PCR.
The presence of HEV RNA in these samples must be interpreted with caution since the
primers used for real time assays and nested RT-PCR target a different region of the
ORF HEV genome.
Table 24: Comparison of the results by real-time RT-PCR and nested RT-PCR assays
in 33 shellfish samples.
Samples
Real-time RT-PCR
Nested RT-PCR
Qiagen qRT-PCR Kapa qRT-
PCR
Sybr qRT-PCR
B8 Above LD Positive Negative Positive
B9 Above LD Above LD Positive Negative
B10 Above LD - Negative Positive
B11 Positive - Positive Positive
B20 Positive Positive Negative Negative
B21 Above LD - Negative Negative
B23 Negative Negative Negative Negative
B24 Positive - Negative Negative
B33 Above LD Positive Negative Negative
B34 Negative Negative Negative Positive
B38 Positive - Negative Negative
B39 Positive - Negative Negative
B43 Above LD - Positive Negative
B51 Positive - Negative Negative
B52 Above LD Positive Negative Negative
B53 Positive - Negative Negative
B54 Positive - Negative Negative
B55 Positive Positive Positive Positive
B58 Positive Positive Positive Negative
B59 Above LD Above LD Negative Negative
B60 Negative - Negative Negative
B61 Above LD Positive Positive Negative
B62 Positive Positive Negative Negative
B63 Above LD Above LD Positive Negative
B64 Negative Negative Negative Negative
B65 Positive Positive Negative Negative
B66 Above LD Above LD Negative Positive*
B67 Positive Positive Positive Negative
B68 Above LD Above LD Positive Negative
B69 Above LD Positive Positive Negative
B70 Positive Positive Negative Negative
B74 Positive - Negative Negative
B80 Positive - Positive* Negative
*This sample was positive only when was tested undiluted.
58
4.5 Sequencing of HEV nested RT-PCR products
The amplified products of 330 bp obtained from samples B8, B10, B11, B34, B55 and
B66, were sequenced and further compared with known HEV reference strains in order
to evaluate their genetic relationship.
The phylogenetic analysis of the HEV products demonstrated that all strains belonged
to HEV genotype 3 subgenotype e (Figure 13), and that they are closely related to
human strains reinforcing the potential risk to public health.
Figure 13: Phylogenetic tree based on the nucleotide sequence of the ORF1. The HEV strains of this
study are named Shellfish 8, 10, 11, 34, 55 and 66. HEV sequences were obtained from GenBank.
59
4.6 Evaluation of viral RNA extraction efficiency
The extraction efficiency of the nucleic acid of all the shellfish samples was evaluated.
For that samples were previously spiked with mengovirus before being processed. The
comparison of the mengo spiking concentration with the concentration of mengo found
after extraction, defines the acceptability of the recovery efficiency of the extraction
process.
The efficiency extraction was calculated for 23 shellfish samples. That were tested
undiluted and diluted (1:10) by Qiagen qRT-PCR for the presence of mengovirus RNA.
The extraction efficiency was calculated using the difference between the Ct value of
the sample and the Ct value of the mengovirus used as positive control in the assay. The
values of the extraction efficiency of the 23 samples are showed in Table 25 and the
amplification curves in Figure 13.
The extraction efficiency of the majority of shellfish samples presented efficiency
>40%, which indicates that mengovirus was successfully recovered from the molluscan
shellfish. Being expected that HEV has been also successfully extracted. For samples
that present an extraction efficiency <10% it is recommended to perform a new
extraction.
60
Table 25: Extraction efficiency of undiluted and diluted shellfish samples spiked with
mengovirus. Samples CtaMengovirus Cta samples ΔCt/3,3b %
Extractionc B1 32.26 34.39 0.645 63.74
B1 1:10 32.26 36.06 1.151 44.77
B2 32.26 33.72 0.442 73.44
B2 1:10 32.26 32.74 0,145 90.35
B3 32.26 27.06 -1.575 300.29
B3 1:10 32.26 33.17 0.275 82.50
B4 32.26 34.73 0.748 59.32
B4 1:10 32.26 34.7 0.739 59.69
B5 32.26 33.32 0.321 79.92
B5 1:10 32.26 34.83 0.778 58.07
B6 32.26 34.24 0.6 65.79
B6 1:10 32.26 33.96 0.515 69.80
B7 32.26 32.71 0.136 90.92
B7 1:10 32.26 34.03 0.536 68.78
B8 32.26 33.9 0.496 70.70
B8 1:10 32.26 33.68 0.248 84.08
B9 32.26 33.15 0.269 82.85
B9 1:10 32.26 37.24 1.509 34.89
B10 32.26 34.49 0.675 62.40
B10 1:10 32.26 35.81 1.075 47.21
B11 32.26 37.56 1.606 32.60
B11 1:10 32.26 39.34 2.145 22.38
B12 32.26 36.92 1.412 37.33
B12 1:10 32.26 35.2 0.890 53.70
B13 32.26 35.06 0.848 55.32
B13 1:10 32.26 37.06 1.454 36.24
B14 32.26 33.03 0.233 84.97
B14 1:10 32.26 33.82 0.472 71.90
B15 32.26 36.64 1.327 39.60
B15 1:10 32.26 34.47 0.669 62.66
B16 32.26 33.68 0.430 74.06
B16 1:10 32.26 35.65 1.027 48.82
B17 32.26 36.92 1.412 37.32
B17 1:10 32.26 36.77 1.366 38.53
B18 32.26 34.31 0.621 64.82
B18 1:10 32.26 38.35 1.845 27.58
B19 32.26 35.76 1.060 47.70
B19 1:10 32.26 35.16 0.878 54.16
B20 32.26 35.23 0.9 53.36
B20 1:10 32.26 13.3 -5.745 5510.15
B21 32.26 30.61 -0.5 141.75
B21 1:10 32.26 17.59 -4.445 2224.32
B22 32.26 33.74 0.448 73.12
B22 1:10 32.26 32.43 0.051 96.46
B23 32.26 5.64 -8.066 27836.13
B23 1:10 32.26 34.7 0.739 59.69
aCt=threshold cycle;
b Slope;
cExtraction efficiency was calculated using 100
e-0.6978ΔCt(ΔCt=Ct sample-Ct mengovirus;
e=exponencial).
61
Some samples showed extraction efficiencies >100%, which means that more
“mengovirus RNA” is being detected than those seeded in the sample, what is
impossible. For example, sample B23 (undiluted) presents an aberrant value 27836.13%
that is a consequence of its Ct value of 5.64 (Figure 5). However when B23 was tested
diluted an acceptable value of efficiency was obtained 59.69%. Matrix interference
could be behind this type of aberrant value observed in undiluted samples but this
problem are normally solved by testing samples after dilution, as observed with B23.
Figure 14: Mengovirus amplification curves of undiluted and diluted shellfish samples by real-Time RT-
PCR. The amplification curve of sample B23 (undiluted) shows an early amplification which shape
suggests a possible interference of the matrix.
The addition of an external virus like mengovirus to a shellfish sample has been
proposed as a control to evaluate the extraction efficiency of molecular virus detection
methods (Costafreda et al., 2006). Mengovirus, which was used in the presented study,
has been considered a good candidate for that purpose by the fact that this virus is
unlikely to naturally contaminate shellfish, it is non-pathogenic for humans and is very
similar to enteric viruses, to be a non-enveloped virus with a single strand RNA (Le
Guyader et al., 2009).
62
5. CONCLUSIONS
63
5. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present project lead to the follow conclusions:
1-The three in house real-time RT-PCR assays used to detect HEV RNA in shellfish
samples, targeting a conserved region within the ORF 3 of the HEV genome, showed
different limits of detection, namely:
10 copies of HEV RNA/reaction for the Qiagen qRT-PCR (probe)
corresponding to a Ct value of 36.27.
500 copies of HEV RNA/reaction for the Kapa qRT-PCR (probe) corresponding
to a Ct value of 35.43.
5 copies of HEV RNA/reaction for Kapa Sybr® qPCR (Sybr Green)
corresponding to a Ct value of 37.44.
2- The results of the detection of HEV RNA in the shellfish samples with these three in
house real-time RT-PCR assays were:
19 samples from 81 tested were positive by Qiagen qRT-PCR;
12 samples from 22 tested were positive by Kapa qRT-PCR;
10 samples from 33 tested were positive by Sybr qRT-PCR.
Only 3 samples were found positive from the total of 20 that were tested by all the
three in house real-time RT-PCR assays. However if samples classified as “above
LD” were also considered (because their high Ct values could be due to the presence
of very low concentrations of HEV RNA) the number of positive samples increase
to 10.
3- From the shellfish samples positive for HEV RNA by real-time RT-PCR 6 were
positive when tested with nested RT-PCR targeting the ORF1 of the HEV genome. The
amplified products of 330bp obtained were sequenced and the phylogenetic analysis
demonstrated that they belonged all to HEV genotype 3 subgenotype e.
4- The results from the RT-PCR assays (either real time or nested) showed how
important is to test the shellfish samples diluted to avoid underestimation of virus
positive samples due to the presence of inhibitors. Similarly, samples must be also
64
tested undiluted to avoid underestimation of samples with low viral concentration. In
fact, the detection of viruses in shellfish is mainly hampered by the presence of
inhibitors of the PCR and low viral concentration.
From our knowledge this is the first study that describe the presence of HEV
genotype 3 in shellfish cultivated in coastal area of Iberian Peninsula although the
presence of other human enteropathogenic viruses, like norovirus, hepatitis A virus and
enterovirus, has already been reported (Romalde et al., 2002; Mesquita et al., 2011;
Manso et al., 2013). This indicates that HEV is contaminating and circulating in the
estuary water environment around those shellfish beds. Whether shellfish were exposed
to human or animal fecal-polluted sewage needs to be further investigated. Other
previous studies have detected the presence of a swine-like HEV genotype 3 in bivalve
mollusks (Li et al., 2007; Crossan et al., 2012; Gao et al., 2015), suggesting the
presence of HEV contamination in the coastal waters where those shellfish were
cultivated.
Bivalve shellfish beds are at constant risk of being exposed to contamination as a
consequence of runoff waste from sewage treatment plants or slurry fertilized fields
(Krog et al., 2014). It is possible that the number of HEV particles discharged into the
environment is too low to detect or that the virus may have a very short period of
persistence in pig manure and human waste (Grodzki et al., 2014) hampered these
investigations.
There are not many studies about the impact of HEV in shellfish although there
are findings suggesting that a health risk may exist for shellfish consumers (Gao et al.,
2015). The evaluation of the human health risk of consuming shellfish from areas where
infectious HEV is present is mandatory.
65
REFERENCES
______________________________________
66
REFERENCES
AFONINA, I., ZIVARTS, M., KUTYAVIN, I., LUKHTANOV, E., GAMPER, H. &
MEYER, R. B. 1997. Efficient priming of PCR with short oligonucleotides
conjugated to a minor groove binder. Nucleic Acids Res, 25, 2657-60.
AGGARWAL, R. 2011. Clinical presentation of hepatitis E. Virus Research, 161, 15-
22.
AGGARWAL, R. & KRAWCZYNSKI, K. 2000. Hepatitis E: An overview and recent
advances in clinical and laboratory research. Journal of Gastroenterology and
Hepatology, 15, 9-20.
AGGARWAL, R. & NAIK, S. 2009. Epidemiology of hepatitis E: Current status.
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 24, 1484-1493.
ATMAR, R. L., METCALF, T. G., NEILL, F. H. & ESTES, M. K. 1993. Detection of
enteric viruses in oysters by using the polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ
Microbiol, 59, 631-635.
ATMAR, R. L., NEILL, F. H., ROMALDE, J. L., LE GUYADER, F., WOODLEY, C.
M., METCALF, T. G. & ESTES, M. K. 1995. Detection of Norwalk virus and
hepatitis A virus in shellfish tissues with the PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol, 61,
3014-3018.
BAERT, L., WOBUS, C. E., VAN COILLIE, E., THACKRAY, L. B., DEBEVERE, J.
& UYTTENDAELE, M. 2008. Detection of murine norovirus 1 by using plaque
assay, transfection assay, and real-time reverse transcription-PCR before and
after heat exposure. Appl Environ Microbiol, 74, 543-546.
BATTS, W., YUN, S., HEDRICK, R. & WINTON, J. 2011. A novel member of the
family Hepeviridae from cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii). Virus Res, 158,
116-123.
BAYLIS, S. A., BLUMEL, J., MIZUSAWA, S., MATSUBAYASHI, K., SAKATA, H.,
OKADA, Y., NUBLING, C. M., HANSCHMANN, K. M. & GROUP, H. E. V.
C. S. 2013. World Health Organization International Standard to harmonize
assays for detection of hepatitis E virus RNA. Emerg Infect Dis, 19, 729-735.
BERTO, A., BACKER, J. A., MESQUITA, J. R., NASCIMENTO, M. S., BANKS, M.,
MARTELLI, F., OSTANELLO, F., ANGELONI, G., DI BARTOLO, I.,
RUGGERI, F. M., VASICKOVA, P., DIEZ-VALCARCE, M., HERNANDEZ,
M., RODRIGUEZ-LAZARO, D. & VAN DER POEL, W. H. 2012. Prevalence
and transmission of hepatitis E virus in domestic swine populations in different
European countries. BMC Res Notes, 5, 190.
BLACKSTONE, G. M., NORDSTROM, J. L., VICKERY, M. C., BOWEN, M. D.,
MEYER, R. F. & DEPAOLA, A. 2003. Detection of pathogenic Vibrio
parahaemolyticus in oyster enrichments by real time PCR. J Microbiol Methods,
53, 149-155.
BOSCH, A., SÁNCHEZ, G., ABBASZADEGAN, M., CARDUCCI, A., GUIX, S., LE
GUYADER, F., NETSHIKWETA, R., PINTÓ, R., VAN DER POEL, W. M.,
RUTJES, S., SANO, D., TAYLOR, M., VAN ZYL, W., RODRÍGUEZ-
LÁZARO, D., KOVAČ, K. & SELLWOOD, J. 2011. Analytical Methods for
Virus Detection in Water and Food. Food Anal Method, 4, 4-12.
67
BOUTROUILLE, A., BAKKALI-KASSIMI, L., CRUCIERE, C. & PAVIO, N. 2007.
Prevalence of anti-hepatitis E virus antibodies in French blood donors. J Clin
Microbiol, 45, 2009-2010.
BOUWKNEGT, M., LODDER-VERSCHOOR, F., VAN DER POEL, W. H., RUTJES,
S. A. & DE RODA HUSMAN, A. M. 2007. Hepatitis E virus RNA in
commercial porcine livers in The Netherlands. J Food Prot, 70, 2889-2895.
BRASSARD, J., GAGNE, M. J., GENEREUX, M. & COTE, C. 2012. Detection of
human food-borne and zoonotic viruses on irrigated, field-grown strawberries.
Appl Environ Microbiol, 78, 3763-3766.
BUSTIN, S. A., BENES, V., GARSON, J. A., HELLEMANS, J., HUGGETT, J.,
KUBISTA, M., MUELLER, R., NOLAN, T., PFAFFL, M. W., SHIPLEY, G.
L., VANDESOMPELE, J. & WITTWER, C. T. 2009. The MIQE guidelines:
minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR
experiments. Clin Chem, 55, 611-622.
BUTI, M., DOMINGUEZ, A., PLANS, P., JARDI, R., SCHAPER, M., ESPUNES, J.,
CARDENOSA, N., RODRIGUEZ-FRIAS, F., ESTEBAN, R., PLASENCIA, A.
& SALLERAS, L. 2006. Community-based seroepidemiological survey of
hepatitis E virus infection in Catalonia, Spain. Clin Vaccine Immunol, 13, 1328-
1332.
CACOPARDO, B., RUSSO, R., PREISER, W., BENANTI, F., BRANCATI, G. &
NUNNARI, A. 1997. Acute hepatitis E in Catania (eastern Sicily) 1980-1994.
The role of hepatitis E virus. Infection, 25, 313-316.
CAMPOS, C. J. & LEES, D. N. 2014. Environmental transmission of human
noroviruses in shellfish waters. Appl Environ Microbiol, 80, 3552-3561.
CHOI, C. & CHAE, C. 2003. Localization of swine hepatitis E virus in liver and
extrahepatic tissues from naturally infected pigs by in situ hybridization. J
Hepatol, 38, 827-832.
COLSON, P., BORENTAIN, P., QUEYRIAUX, B., KABA, M., MOAL, V.,
GALLIAN, P., HEYRIES, L., RAOULT, D. & GEROLAMI, R. 2010. Pig liver
sausage as a source of hepatitis E virus transmission to humans. J Infect Dis,
202, 825-834.
COSTAFREDA, M. I., BOSCH, A. & PINTO, R. M. 2006. Development, evaluation,
and standardization of a real-time TaqMan reverse transcription-PCR assay for
quantification of hepatitis A virus in clinical and shellfish samples. Appl Environ
Microbiol, 72, 3846-3855.
CROCI, L., DUBOIS, E., COOK, N., DE MEDICI, D., SCHULTZ, A., CHINA, B.,
RUTJES, S., HOORFAR, J. & VAN DER POEL, W. M. 2008. Current Methods
for Extraction and Concentration of Enteric Viruses from Fresh Fruit and
Vegetables: Towards International Standards. Food Anal Methods, 1, 73-84.
CROSSAN, C., BAKER, P. J., CRAFT, J., TAKEUCHI, Y., DALTON, H. R. &
SCOBIE, L. 2012. Hepatitis E virus genotype 3 in shellfish, United Kingdom.
Emerg Infect Dis, 18, 2085-2087.
DALTON, H. R., BENDALL, R., IJAZ, S. & BANKS, M. 2008a. Hepatitis E: an
emerging infection in developed countries. Lancet Infect Dis, 8, 698-709.
DALTON, H. R., BENDALL, R. P., KEANE, F. E., TEDDER, R. S. & IJAZ, S. 2009.
Persistent carriage of hepatitis E virus in patients with HIV infection. New
England Journal of Medicine, 361, 1025-1027.
DALTON, H. R., STABLEFORTH, W., THURAIRAJAH, P., HAZELDINE, S.,
REMNARACE, R., USAMA, W., FARRINGTON, L., HAMAD, N.,
SIEBERHAGEN, C., ELLIS, V., MITCHELL, J., HUSSAINI, S. H., BANKS,
68
M., IJAZ, S. & BENDALL, R. P. 2008b. Autochthonous hepatitis e in
Southwest England: Natural history, complications and seasonal variation, and
hepatitis e virus IgG seroprevalence in blood donors, the elderly and patients
with chronic liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 20, 784-790.
DE DEUS, N., PERALTA, B., PINA, S., ALLEPUZ, A., MATEU, E., VIDAL, D.,
RUIZ-FONS, F., MARTÍN, M., GORTÁZAR, C. & SEGALÉS, J. 2008.
Epidemiological study of hepatitis E virus infection in European wild boars (Sus
scrofa) in Spain. Vet Microbiol, 129, 163-170.
DE MEDICI, D., KUCHTA, T., KNUTSSON, R., ANGELOV, A., AURICCHIO, B.,
BARBANERA, M., DIAZ-AMIGO, C., FIORE, A., KUDIRKIENE, E., HOHL,
A., HORVATEK TOMIC, D., GOTCHEVA, V., POPPING, B., PRUKNER-
RADOVCIC, E., SCARAMAGLIA, S., SIEKEL, P., TO, K. A. & WAGNER,
M. 2015. Rapid Methods for Quality Assurance of Foods: the Next Decade with
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-Based Food Monitoring. Food Anal
Methods, 8, 255-271.
DE RODA HUSMAN, A. M., LODDER-VERSCHOOR, F., VAN DEN BERG, H. H.,
LE GUYADER, F. S., VAN PELT, H., VAN DER POEL, W. H. & RUTJES, S.
A. 2007. Rapid virus detection procedure for molecular tracing of shellfish
associated with disease outbreaks. J Food Prot, 70, 967-74.
DI BARTOLO, I., ANGELONI, G., PONTERIO, E., OSTANELLO, F. & RUGGERI,
F. M. 2015. Detection of hepatitis E virus in pork liver sausages. Int J Food
Microbiol, 193, 29-33.
DIEZ-VALCARCE, M., COOK, N., HERNÁNDEZ, M. & RODRÍGUEZ-LÁZARO,
D. 2011. Analytical Application of a Sample Process Control in Detection of
Foodborne Viruses. Food Anal Methods, 4, 614-618.
DIEZ-VALCARCE, M., KOKKINOS, P., SODERBERG, K., BOUWKNEGT, M.,
WILLEMS, K., DE RODA-HUSMAN, A. M., VON BONSDORFF, C. H.,
BELLOU, M., HERNANDEZ, M., MAUNULA, L., VANTARAKIS, A. &
RODRIGUEZ-LAZARO, D. 2012. Occurrence of human enteric viruses in
commercial mussels at retail level in three European countries. Food Environ
Virol, 4, 73-80.
DING, X., LI, T.-C., HAYASHI, S., MASAKI, N., TRAN, T. T. H., HIRANO, M.,
YAMAGUCHI, M., USUI, M., TAKEDA, N. & ABE, K. 2003. Present state of
hepatitis E virus epidemiology in Tokyo, Japan. Hepatol Res, 27, 169-173.
DONIA, D., DELL’AMICO, M. C., PETRINCA, A. R., MARTINUCCI, I., MAZZEI,
M., TOLARI, F. & DIVIZIA, M. 2012. Presence of hepatitis E RNA in mussels
used as bio-monitors of viral marine pollution. J Virol Methods, 186, 198-202.
DREXLER, J. F., SEELEN, A., CORMAN, V. M., FUMIE TATENO, A.,
COTTONTAIL, V., MELIM ZERBINATI, R., GLOZA-RAUSCH, F., KLOSE,
S. M., ADU-SARKODIE, Y., OPPONG, S. K., KALKO, E. K., OSTERMAN,
A., RASCHE, A., ADAM, A., MULLER, M. A., ULRICH, R. G., LEROY, E.
M., LUKASHEV, A. N. & DROSTEN, C. 2012. Bats worldwide carry hepatitis
E virus-related viruses that form a putative novel genus within the family
Hepeviridae. J Virol, 86, 9134-9147.
DROBENIUC, J., FAVOROV, M. O., SHAPIRO, C. N., BELL, B. P., MAST, E. E.,
DADU, A., CULVER, D., IAROVOI, P., ROBERTSON, B. H. & MARGOLIS,
H. S. 2001. Hepatitis E virus antibody prevalence among persons who work with
swine. J Infect Dis, 184, 1594-1597.
ECHEVARRIA, J. M. 2014. Light and Darkness: Prevalence of Hepatitis E Virus
Infection among the General Population. Scientifica (Cairo), 2014, 1-14.
69
EMERSON, S. U., ARANKALLE, V. A. & PURCELL, R. H. 2005. Thermal stability
of hepatitis E virus. J Infect Dis, 192, 930-933.
FEAGINS, A. R., OPRIESSNIG, T., GUENETTE, D. K., HALBUR, P. G. & MENG,
X. J. 2007. Detection and characterization of infectious Hepatitis E virus from
commercial pig livers sold in local grocery stores in the USA. J Gen Virol, 88,
912-917.
GAO, S., LI, D., ZHA, E., ZHOU, T., WANG, S. & YUE, X. 2015. Surveillance of
Hepatitis E Virus Contamination in Shellfish in China. Int J Environ Res Public
Health, 12, 2026-2036.
GARBUGLIA, A. R., SCOGNAMIGLIO, P., PETROSILLO, N., MASTROIANNI, C.
M., SORDILLO, P., GENTILE, D., LA SCALA, P., GIRARDI, E. &
CAPOBIANCHI, M. R. 2013. Hepatitis E virus genotype 4 outbreak, Italy,
2011. Emerg Infect Dis, 19, 110-114.
GARSON, J. A., FERNS, R. B., GRANT, P. R., IJAZ, S., NASTOULI, E.,
SZYPULSKA, R. & TEDDER, R. S. 2012. Minor groove binder modification of
widely used TaqMan probe for hepatitis E virus reduces risk of false negative
real-time PCR results. J Virol Methods, 186, 157-160.
GERBER, P. F., XIAO, C. T., CAO, D., MENG, X. J. & OPRIESSNIG, T. 2014.
Comparison of real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assays for detection of swine
hepatitis E virus in fecal samples. J Clin Microbiol, 52, 1045-1051.
GÉROLAMI, R., MOAL, V. & COLSON, P. 2008. Chronic hepatitis E with cirrhosis in
a kidney-transplant recipient. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 859-860.
GIBSON, U. E., HEID, C. A. & WILLIAMS, P. M. 1996. A novel method for real time
quantitative RT-PCR. Genome Res, 6, 995-1001.
GRODZKI, M., SCHAEFFER, J., PIQUET, J. C., LE SAUX, J. C., CHEVE, J.,
OLLIVIER, J., LE PENDU, J. & LE GUYADER, F. S. 2014. Bioaccumulation
efficiency, tissue distribution, and environmental occurrence of hepatitis E virus
in bivalve shellfish from France. Appl Environ Microbiol, 80, 4269-4276.
GYARMATI, P., MOHAMMED, N., NORDER, H., BLOMBERG, J., BELÁK, S. &
WIDÉN, F. 2007. Universal detection of hepatitis E virus by two real-time PCR
assays: TaqMan® and Primer-Probe Energy Transfer. J Virological Methods,
146, 226-235.
HA, S. K. & CHAE, C. 2004. Immunohistochemistry for the detection of swine
hepatitis E virus in the liver. J Viral Hepat, 11, 263-267.
HAAGSMA, E. B., VAN DEN BERG, A. P., PORTE, R. J., BENNE, C. A.,
VENNEMA, H., REIMERINK, J. H. J. & KOOPMANS, M. P. G. 2008.
Chronic hepatitis E virus infection in liver transplant recipients. Liver
Transplantation, 14, 547-553.
HAKZE-VAN DER HONING, R. W., VAN COILLIE, E., ANTONIS, A. F. & VAN
DER POEL, W. H. 2011. First isolation of hepatitis E virus genotype 4 in
Europe through swine surveillance in the Netherlands and Belgium. PLoS One,
6, 22673.
HAN, J., LEI, Y., LIU, L., LIU, P., XIA, J., ZHANG, Y., ZENG, H., WANG, L.,
WANG, L. & ZHUANG, H. 2014. SPF rabbits infected with rabbit hepatitis E
virus isolate experimentally showing the chronicity of hepatitis. PLoS One, 9,
99861.
HAQSHENAS, G., SHIVAPRASAD, H. L., WOOLCOCK, P. R., READ, D. H. &
MENG, X. J. 2001. Genetic identification and characterization of a novel virus
related to human hepatitis E virus from chickens with hepatitis-splenomegaly
syndrome in the United States. J Gen Virol, 82, 2449-2462.
70
HAYDON, D. T., CLEAVELAND, S., TAYLOR, L. H. & LAURENSON, M. K. 2002.
Identifying reservoirs of infection: a conceptual and practical challenge. Emerg
Infect Dis, 8, 1468-1473.
HEID, C. A., STEVENS, J., LIVAK, K. J. & WILLIAMS, P. M. 1996. Real time
quantitative PCR. Genome Res, 6, 986-994.
HOLLA, P., AHMAD, I., AHMED, Z. & JAMEEL, S. 2015. Hepatitis E virus enters
liver cells through a dynamin-2, clathrin and membrane cholesterol-dependent
pathway. Traffic, 16, 398-416.
HOLLAND, P. M., ABRAMSON, R. D., WATSON, R. & GELFAND, D. H. 1991.
Detection of specific polymerase chain reaction product by utilizing the 5'----3'
exonuclease activity of Thermus aquaticus DNA polymerase. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A, 88, 7276-7280.
HOORFAR, J., MALORNY, B., ABDULMAWJOOD, A., COOK, N., WAGNER, M.
& FACH, P. 2004. Practical considerations in design of internal amplification
controls for diagnostic PCR assays. J Clin Microbiol, 42, 1863-1868.
IACONELLI, M., PURPARI, G., LIBERA, S. D., PETRICCA, S., GUERCIO, A.,
CICCAGLIONE, A. R., BRUNI, R., TAFFON, S., EQUESTRE, M., FRATINI,
M., MUSCILLO, M. & LA ROSA, G. 2015. Hepatitis A and E Viruses in
Wastewaters, in River Waters, and in Bivalve Molluscs in Italy. Food Environ
Virol.
IDOLO, A., SERIO, F., LUGOLI, F., GRASSI, T., BAGORDO, F., GUIDO, M.,
PRIVITERA, G., LOBREGLIO, G. & DE DONNO, A. 2013. Identification of
HEV in symptom-free migrants and environmental samples in Italy. J Viral
Hepat, 20, 438-443.
IJAZ, S., ARNOLD, E., BANKS, M., BENDALL, R. P., CRAMP, M. E.,
CUNNINGHAM, R., DALTON, H. R., HARRISON, T. J., HILL, S. F.,
MACFARLANE, L., MEIGH, R. E., SHAFI, S., SHEPPARD, M. J.,
SMITHSON, J., WILSON, M. P. & TEO, C. G. 2005. Non-travel-associated
hepatitis E in England and Wales: demographic, clinical, and molecular
epidemiological characteristics. J Infect Dis, 192, 1166-1172.
JEFFREYS, A. J., WILSON, V., NEUMANN, R. & KEYTE, J. 1988. Amplification of
human minisatellites by the polymerase chain reaction: towards DNA
fingerprinting of single cells. Nucleic Acids Res, 16, 10953-10971.
JOHNE, R., PLENGE-BONIG, A., HESS, M., ULRICH, R. G., REETZ, J. &
SCHIELKE, A. 2010. Detection of a novel hepatitis E-like virus in faeces of
wild rats using a nested broad-spectrum RT-PCR. J Gen Virol, 91, 750-758.
JOTHIKUMAR, N., CROMEANS, T. L., ROBERTSON, B. H., MENG, X. J. & HILL,
V. R. 2006. A broadly reactive one-step real-time RT-PCR assay for rapid and
sensitive detection of hepatitis E virus. J Virol Methods, 131, 65-71.
KABA, M., DAVOUST, B., MARIÉ, J.-L. & COLSON, P. 2010. Detection of hepatitis
E virus in wild boar (Sus scrofa) livers. Vet J, 186, 259-261.
KAMAR, N., BENDALL, R., LEGRAND-ABRAVANEL, F., XIA, N.-S., IJAZ, S.,
IZOPET, J. & DALTON, H. R. Hepatitis E. Lancet, 379, 2477-2488.
KOKKINOS, P., KOZYRA, I., LAZIC, S., BOUWKNEGT, M., RUTJES, S.,
WILLEMS, K., MOLONEY, R., DE RODA HUSMAN, A. M., KAUPKE, A.,
LEGAKI, E., D’AGOSTINO, M., COOK, N., RZEŻUTKA, A., PETROVIC, T.
& VANTARAKIS, A. 2012. Harmonised Investigation of the Occurrence of
Human Enteric Viruses in the Leafy Green Vegetable Supply Chain in Three
European Countries. Food Environ Virol, 4, 179-191.
71
KOOPMANS, M., VON BONSDORFF, C. H., VINJE, J., DE MEDICI, D. &
MONROE, S. 2002. Foodborne viruses. FEMS Microbiol Rev, 26, 187-205.
KROG, J. S., LARSEN, L. E. & SCHULTZ, A. C. 2014. Enteric porcine viruses in
farmed shellfish in Denmark. Int J Food Microbiol, 186, 105-109.
KUMAR, S., SUBHADRA, S., SINGH, B. & PANDA, B. K. 2013. Hepatitis E virus:
the current scenario. Int J Infec Dis, 17, e228-e233.
KUTYAVIN, I. V., AFONINA, I. A., MILLS, A., GORN, V. V., LUKHTANOV, E.
A., BELOUSOV, E. S., SINGER, M. J., WALBURGER, D. K., LOKHOV, S.
G., GALL, A. A., DEMPCY, R., REED, M. W., MEYER, R. B. &
HEDGPETH, J. 2000. 3'-minor groove binder-DNA probes increase sequence
specificity at PCR extension temperatures. Nucleic Acids Res, 28, 655-661.
LA ROSA, G., MUSCILLO, M., VENNARUCCI, V. S., GARBUGLIA, A. R., LA
SCALA, P. & CAPOBIANCHI, M. R. 2011. Hepatitis E virus in Italy:
molecular analysis of travel-related and autochthonous cases. J Gen Virol, 92,
1617-1626.
LAZIC, G., GRUBAC, S., LUPULOVIC, D., BUGARSKI, D., LAZIC, S.,
KNEZEVIC, P. & PETROVIC, T. 2015. Presence of Human and Animal
Viruses in Surface Waters in Vojvodina Province of Serbia. Food Environ Virol.
LE GUYADER, F., HAUGARREAU, L., MIOSSEC, L., DUBOIS, E. &
POMMEPUY, M. 2000. Three-year study to assess human enteric viruses in
shellfish. Appl Environ Microbiol, 66, 3241-3248.
LE GUYADER, F. S., LE SAUX, J. C., AMBERT-BALAY, K., KROL, J., SERAIS,
O., PARNAUDEAU, S., GIRAUDON, H., DELMAS, G., POMMEPUY, M.,
POTHIER, P. & ATMAR, R. L. 2008. Aichi virus, norovirus, astrovirus,
enterovirus, and rotavirus involved in clinical cases from a French oyster-related
gastroenteritis outbreak. J Clin Microbiol, 46, 4011-4017.
LE GUYADER, F. S., PARNAUDEAU, S., SCHAEFFER, J., BOSCH, A., LOISY, F.,
POMMEPUY, M. & ATMAR, R. L. 2009. Detection and quantification of
noroviruses in shellfish. Appl Environ Microbiol, 75, 618-624.
LEES, D. 2000. Viruses and bivalve shellfish. Int J Food Microbiol, 59, 81-116.
LEGRAND-ABRAVANEL, F., MANSUY, J. M., DUBOIS, M., KAMAR, N.,
PERON, J. M., ROSTAING, L. & IZOPET, J. 2009. Hepatitis E virus genotype
3 diversity, France. Emerg Infect Dis, 15, 110-114.
LEVESQUE-SERGERIE, J. P., DUQUETTE, M., THIBAULT, C., DELBECCHI, L. &
BISSONNETTE, N. 2007. Detection limits of several commercial reverse
transcriptase enzymes: impact on the low- and high-abundance transcript levels
assessed by quantitative RT-PCR. BMC Mol Biol, 8, 93.
LEWIS, H. C., BOISSON, S., IJAZ, S., HEWITT, K., NGUI, S. L., BOXALL, E.,
TEO, C. G. & MORGAN, D. 2008. Hepatitis E in England and Wales. Emerg
Infect Dis, 14, 165-167.
LI, T. C., MIYAMURA, T. & TAKEDA, N. 2007. Detection of hepatitis E virus RNA
from the bivalve Yamato-Shijimi (Corbicula japonica) in Japan. Am J Trop Med
Hyg, 76, 170-172.
LI, T. C., YONEMITSU, K., TERADA, Y., TAKEDA, N., TAKAJI, W. & MAEDA,
K. 2015. Ferret hepatitis E virus infection in Japan. Jpn J Infect Dis, 68, 60-62.
LOWTHER, J. A., HENSHILWOOD, K. & LEES, D. N. 2008. Determination of
norovirus contamination in oysters from two commercial harvesting areas over
an extended period, using semiquantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR.
J Food Prot, 71, 1427-1433.
72
LU, L., LI, C. & HAGEDORN, C. H. 2006. Phylogenetic analysis of global hepatitis E
virus sequences: Genetic diversity, subtypes and zoonosis. Rev Med Virol, 16, 5-
36.
LYAMICHEV, V., BROW, M. A. & DAHLBERG, J. E. 1993. Structure-specific
endonucleolytic cleavage of nucleic acids by eubacterial DNA polymerases.
Science, 260, 778-783.
MANSO, C. F. & ROMALDE, J. L. 2013. Detection and characterization of hepatitis A
virus and norovirus in mussels from Galicia (NW Spain). Food Environ Virol, 5,
110-8.
MANSUY, J. M., LEGRAND-ABRAVANEL, F., CALOT, J. P., PERON, J. M.,
ALRIC, L., AGUDO, S., RECH, H., DESTRUEL, F. & IZOPET, J. 2008. High
prevalence of anti-hepatitis E virus antibodies in blood donors from South West
France. J Med Virol, 80, 289-293.
MARTELLI, F., CAPRIOLI, A., ZENGARINI, M., MARATA, A., FIEGNA, C., DI
BARTOLO, I., RUGGERI, F. M., DELOGU, M. & OSTANELLO, F. 2008.
Detection of Hepatitis E virus (HEV) in a demographic managed wild boar (Sus
scrofa scrofa) population in Italy. Vet Microbiol, 126, 74-81.
MARTIN-LATIL, S., HENNECHART-COLLETTE, C., GUILLIER, L. & PERELLE,
S. 2014. Method for HEV detection in raw pig liver products and its
implementation for naturally contaminated food. Int J Food Microbiol, 176, 1-8.
MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, M., DIEZ-VALCARCE, M., HERNANDEZ, M. &
RODRIGUEZ-LAZARO, D. 2011. Design and Application of Nucleic Acid
Standards for Quantitative Detection of Enteric Viruses by Real-Time PCR.
Food Environ Virol, 3, 92-98.
MASUDA, J., YANO, K., TAMADA, Y., TAKII, Y., ITO, M., OMAGARI, K. &
KOHNO, S. 2005. Acute hepatitis E of a man who consumed wild boar meat
prior to the onset of illness in Nagasaki, Japan. Hepatol Res, 31, 178-183.
MATSUDA, H., OKADA, K., TAKAHASHI, K. & MISHIRO, S. 2003. Severe
hepatitis E virus infection after ingestion of uncooked liver from a wild boar. J
Infect Dis, 188, 944.
MAUNULA, L., KAUPKE, A., VASICKOVA, P., SODERBERG, K., KOZYRA, I.,
LAZIC, S., VAN DER POEL, W. H., BOUWKNEGT, M., RUTJES, S.,
WILLEMS, K. A., MOLONEY, R., D'AGOSTINO, M., DE RODA HUSMAN,
A. M., VON BONSDORFF, C. H., RZEZUTKA, A., PAVLIK, I., PETROVIC,
T. & COOK, N. 2013. Tracing enteric viruses in the European berry fruit supply
chain. Int J Food Microbiol, 167, 177-185.
MCCREARY, C., MARTELLI, F., GRIERSON, S., OSTANELLO, F., NEVEL, A. &
BANKS, M. 2008. Excretion of hepatitis E virus by pigs of different ages and its
presence in slurry stores in the United Kingdom. Vet Rec, 163, 261-265.
MENG, X. J. 2010. Hepatitis E virus: animal reservoirs and zoonotic risk. Vet
Microbiol, 140, 256-265.
MENG, X. J. 2011. From barnyard to food table: the omnipresence of hepatitis E virus
and risk for zoonotic infection and food safety. Virus Res, 161, 23-30.
MENG, X. J., PURCELL, R. H., HALBUR, P. G., LEHMAN, J. R., WEBB, D. M.,
TSAREVA, T. S., HAYNES, J. S., THACKER, B. J. & EMERSON, S. U. 1997.
A novel virus in swine is closely related to the human hepatitis E virus. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, 94, 9860-9865.
MESQUITA, J. R., VAZ, L., CERQUEIRA, S., CASTILHO, F., SANTOS, R.,
MONTEIRO, S., MANSO, C. F., ROMALDE, J. L. & NASCIMENTO, M. S.
73
2011. Norovirus, hepatitis A virus and enterovirus presence in shellfish from
high quality harvesting areas in Portugal. Food Microbiol, 28, 936-41.
MESQUITA, J. R., OLIVEIRA, R. M., COELHO, C., VIEIRA-PINTO, M. &
NASCIMENTO, M. S. 2014. Hepatitis E Virus in Sylvatic and Captive Wild
Boar from Portugal. Transbound Emerg Dis.1-5.
METCALF, T. G., MELNICK, J. L. & ESTES, M. K. 1995. Environmental virology:
from detection of virus in sewage and water by isolation to identification by
molecular biology--a trip of over 50 years. Annu Rev Microbiol, 49, 461-487.
MIRAZO, S., RAMOS, N., MAINARDI, V., GERONA, S. & ARBIZA, J. 2014.
Transmission, diagnosis, and management of hepatitis E: an update. Hepat Med,
6, 45-59.
MIRAZO, S., RAMOS, N., RUSSI, J. C. & ARBIZA, J. 2013. Genetic heterogeneity
and subtyping of human Hepatitis E virus isolates from Uruguay. Virus Res,
173, 364-370.
MIYASHITA, K., KANG, J. H., SAGA, A., TAKAHASHI, K., SHIMAMURA, T.,
YASUMOTO, A., FUKUSHIMA, H., SOGABE, S., KONISHI, K., UCHIDA,
T., FUJINAGA, A., MATSUI, T., SAKURAI, Y., TSUJI, K., MAGUCHI, H.,
TANIGUCHI, M., ABE, N., FAZLE AKBAR, S. M., ARAI, M. & MISHIRO,
S. 2012. Three cases of acute or fulminant hepatitis E caused by ingestion of
pork meat and entrails in Hokkaido, Japan: Zoonotic food-borne transmission of
hepatitis E virus and public health concerns. Hepatol Res, 42, 870-878.
NAMSAI, A., LOUISIRIROTCHANAKUL, S., WONGCHINDA, N.,
SIRIPANYAPHINYO, U., VIRULHAKUL, P., PUTHAVATHANA, P.,
MYINT, K. S., GANNARONG, M. & ITTAPONG, R. 2011. Surveillance of
hepatitis A and E viruses contamination in shellfish in Thailand. Lett Appl
Microbiol, 53, 608-613.
NIDAIRA, M., TAKAHASHI, K., OGURA, G., TAIRA, K., OKANO, S., KUDAKA,
J., ITOKAZU, K., MISHIRO, S. & NAKAMURA, M. 2012. Detection and
phylogenetic analysis of hepatitis E viruses from mongooses in Okinawa, Japan.
J Vet Med Sci, 74, 1665-1668.
NUANUALSUWAN, S. & CLIVER, D. O. 2002. Pretreatment to avoid positive RT-
PCR results with inactivated viruses. J Virol Methods, 104, 217-225.
OKANO, H., TAKAHASHI, M., ISONO, Y., TANAKA, H., NAKANO, T., OYA, Y.,
SUGIMOTO, K., ITO, K., OHMORI, S., MAEGAWA, T., KOBAYASHI, M.,
NAGASHIMA, S., NISHIZAWA, T. & OKAMOTO, H. 2014. Characterization
of sporadic acute hepatitis E and comparison of hepatitis E virus genomes in
acute hepatitis patients and pig liver sold as food in Mie, Japan. Hepatol Res, 44,
63-76.
PAVIO, N. & MANSUY, J. M. 2010. Hepatitis e in high-income countries. Current
Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 23, 521-527.
PAVIO, N., MENG, X. J. & RENOU, C. 2010. Zoonotic hepatitis E: animal reservoirs
and emerging risks. Vet Res, 41, 46.
PILAR, C.-C., SONIA, P., MARIA, B., ROSEND, J., MARGARITA, M., SÍLVIA, B.-
M. & ROSINA, G. 2003. Hepatitis E Virus Epidemiology in Industrialized
Countries. Emerg Infect Dis J, 9, 449.
PINA, S., JOFRE, J., EMERSON, S. U., PURCELL, R. H. & GIRONES, R. 1998.
Characterization of a strain of infectious hepatitis E virus isolated from sewage
in an area where hepatitis E is not endemic. Appl Environ Microbiol, 64, 4485-
4488.
74
PINTO, R. M., COSTAFREDA, M. I. & BOSCH, A. 2009. Risk assessment in
shellfish-borne outbreaks of hepatitis A. Appl Environ Microbiol, 75, 7350-
7355.
PURCELL, R. & EMERSON, S.U. Hepatitis E virus. In: Knipe D, Howley P, Griffin D,
Lamb R, Martin M, Roizman B, et al., editors. 2001. Fields Virology. 4th ed.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott: Williams and Wilkins; pp. 3051–3061.
PURCELL, R. H. & EMERSON, S. U. 2008. Hepatitis E: An emerging awareness of an
old disease. J Hepatol, 48, 494-503.
RAJKO-NENOW, P., WATERS, A., KEAVENEY, S., FLANNERY, J., TUITE, G.,
COUGHLAN, S., O'FLAHERTY, V. & DORE, W. 2013. Norovirus genotypes
present in oysters and in effluent from a wastewater treatment plant during the
seasonal peak of infections in Ireland in 2010. Appl Environ Microbiol, 79,
2578-2587.
RAYMAEKERS, M., SMETS, R., MAES, B. & CARTUYVELS, R. 2009. Checklist
for optimization and validation of real-time PCR assays. J Clin Lab Anal, 23,
145-151.
REIN, D. B., STEVENS, G. A., THEAKER, J., WITTENBORN, J. S. & WIERSMA,
S. T. 2012. The global burden of hepatitis E virus genotypes 1 and 2 in 2005.
Hepatology, 55, 988-997.
RENOU, C., MOREAU, X., PARIENTE, A., CADRANEL, J. F., MARINGE, E.,
MORIN, T., CAUSSE, X., PAYEN, J. L., IZOPET, J., NICAND, E.,
BOURLIERE, M., PENARANDA, G., HARDWIGSEN, J., GEROLAMI, R.,
PERON, J. M., PAVIO, N. & ANGH, F. 2008. A national survey of acute
hepatitis E in France. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 27, 1086-1093.
REUTER, G., FODOR, D., FORGÁCH, P., KÁTAI, A. & SZŰCS, G. 2009.
Characterization and zoonotic potential of endemic hepatitis E virus (HEV)
strains in humans and animals in Hungary. J Clin Virol, 44, 277-281.
RIJPENS, N. P. & HERMAN, L. M. 2002. Molecular methods for identification and
detection of bacterial food pathogens. J AOAC Int, 85, 984-995.
RODRIGUEZ-LAZARO, D., COOK, N., RUGGERI, F. M., SELLWOOD, J.,
NASSER, A., NASCIMENTO, M. S., D'AGOSTINO, M., SANTOS, R., SAIZ,
J. C., RZEZUTKA, A., BOSCH, A., GIRONES, R., CARDUCCI, A.,
MUSCILLO, M., KOVAC, K., DIEZ-VALCARCE, M., VANTARAKIS, A.,
VON BONSDORFF, C. H., DE RODA HUSMAN, A. M., HERNANDEZ, M.
& VAN DER POEL, W. H. 2012. Virus hazards from food, water and other
contaminated environments. FEMS Microbiol Rev, 36, 786-814.
RODRIGUEZ-LAZARO, D. & HERNANDEZ, M. 2013. Real-time PCR in Food
Science: Introduction. Curr Issues Mol Biol, 15, 25-38.
ROMALDE, J. L., ESTES, M. K., SZUCS, G., ATMAR, R. L., WOODLEY, C. M. &
METCALF, T. G. 1994. In situ detection of hepatitis A virus in cell cultures and
shellfish tissues. Appl Environ Microbiol, 60, 1921-1926.
ROMALDE, J. L., AREA, E., SANCHEZ, G., RIBAO, C., TORRADO, I., ABAD, X.,
PINTO, R. M., BARJA, J. L. & BOSCH, A. 2002. Prevalence of enterovirus and
hepatitis A virus in bivalve molluscs from Galicia (NW Spain): inadequacy of
the EU standards of microbiological quality. Int J Food Microbiol, 74, 119-30.
ROSE, N., LUNAZZI, A., DORENLOR, V., MERBAH, T., EONO, F., ELOIT, M.,
MADEC, F. & PAVIO, N. 2011. High prevalence of Hepatitis E virus in French
domestic pigs. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis, 34, 419-427.
75
RUGGERI, F. M., DI BARTOLO, I., PONTERIO, E., ANGELONI, G., TREVISANI,
M. & OSTANELLO, F. 2013. Zoonotic transmission of hepatitis E virus in
industrialized countries. New Microbiol, 36, 331-344.
RUTJES, S. A., LODDER, W. J., LODDER-VERSCHOOR, F., VAN DEN BERG, H.
H., VENNEMA, H., DUIZER, E., KOOPMANS, M. & DE RODA HUSMAN,
A. M. 2009. Sources of hepatitis E virus genotype 3 in The Netherlands. Emerg
Infect Dis, 15, 381-387.
SAID, B., IJAZ, S., CHAND, M. A., KAFATOS, G., TEDDER, R. & MORGAN, D.
2014. Hepatitis E virus in England and Wales: indigenous infection is associated
with the consumption of processed pork products. Epidemiol Infect, 142, 1467-
1475.
SAID, B., IJAZ, S., KAFATOS, G., BOOTH, L., THOMAS, H. L., WALSH, A.,
RAMSAY, M., MORGAN, D. & HEPATITIS, E. I. I. T. 2009. Hepatitis E
outbreak on cruise ship. Emerg Infect Dis, 15, 1738-1744.
SANCHEZ, G., PINTO, R. M., VANACLOCHA, H. & BOSCH, A. 2002. Molecular
characterization of hepatitis a virus isolates from a transcontinental shellfish-
borne outbreak. J Clin Microbiol, 40, 4148-4155.
SCOTTO, G., BULLA, F., CAMPANALE, F., TARTAGLIA, A. & FAZIO, V. 2013.
[Hepatitis E]. Infez Med, 21, 175-188.
SHALIMAR & ACHARYA, S. K. 2013. Hepatitis e and acute liver failure in
pregnancy. J Clin Exp Hepatol, 3, 213-224.
SMITH, J. L. 2001. A review of hepatitis E virus. J Food Prot, 64, 572-86.
SON, N. R., SEO, D. J., LEE, M. H., SEO, S., WANG, X., LEE, B. H., LEE, J. S.,
JOO, I. S., HWANG, I. G. & CHOI, C. 2014. Optimization of the elution buffer
and concentration method for detecting hepatitis E virus in swine liver using a
nested reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and real-time reverse
transcription-polymerase chain reaction. J Virol Methods, 206, 99-104.
SONG, Y.-J., JEONG, H.-J., KIM, Y.-J., LEE, S.-W., LEE, J.-B., PARK, S.-Y., SONG,
C.-S., PARK, H.-M. & CHOI, I.-S. 2010. Analysis of complete genome
sequences of swine hepatitis E virus and possible risk factors for transmission of
HEV to humans in Korea. J Med Virol, 82, 583-591.
SRIDHAR, S., LAU, S. K. P. & WOO, P. C. Y. 2015. Hepatitis E: A disease of
reemerging importance. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 114,
681-690.
STALS, A., BAERT, L., VAN COILLIE, E. & UYTTENDAELE, M. 2012. Extraction
of food-borne viruses from food samples: a review. Int J Food Microbiol, 153,
1-9.
SUFFREDINI, E., LANNI, L., ARCANGELI, G., PEPE, T., MAZZETTE, R.,
CICCAGLIONI, G. & CROCI, L. 2014. Qualitative and quantitative assessment
of viral contamination in bivalve molluscs harvested in Italy. Int J Food
Microbiol, 184, 21-26.
TAKAHASHI, K., KITAJIMA, N., ABE, N. & MISHIRO, S. 2004. Complete or near-
complete nucleotide sequences of hepatitis E virus genome recovered from a
wild boar, a deer, and four patients who ate the deer. Virology, 330, 501-505.
TAKAHASHI, M., NISHIZAWA, T., NAGASHIMA, S., JIRINTAI, S., KAWAKAMI,
M., SONODA, Y., SUZUKI, T., YAMAMOTO, S., SHIGEMOTO, K.,
ASHIDA, K., SATO, Y. & OKAMOTO, H. 2014. Molecular characterization of
a novel hepatitis E virus (HEV) strain obtained from a wild boar in Japan that is
highly divergent from the previously recognized HEV strains. Virus Res, 180,
59-69.
76
TAKAHASHI, M. & OKAMOTO, H. 2014. Features of hepatitis E virus infection in
humans and animals in Japan. Hepatol Res, 44, 43-58.
TAMURA, K., DUDLEY, J., NEI, M. & KUMAR, S. 2007. MEGA4: Molecular
Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol,
24, 1596-9.
TEI, S., KITAJIMA, N., TAKAHASHI, K. & MISHIRO, S. 2003. Zoonotic
transmission of hepatitis E virus from deer to human beings. Lancet, 362, 371-373.
TEO, C. G. 2010. Much meat, much malady: changing perceptions of the epidemiology
of hepatitis E. Clin Microbiol Infect, 16, 24-32.
THOMAS, D. L., YARBOUGH, P. O., VLAHOV, D., TSAREV, S. A., NELSON, K.
E., SAAH, A. J. & PURCELL, R. H. 1997. Seroreactivity to hepatitis E virus in
areas where the disease is not endemic. J Clin Microbiol, 35, 1244-1247.
TIAN-CHENG, L., KATSUMI, C., NOBUYUKI, S., TETSUYA, I., YOSHIKI, E.,
YUJI, S., YASUO, K., MIKI, I., SHIGERU, S., NAOKAZU, T. & TATSUO,
M. 2005. Hepatitis E Virus Transmission from Wild Boar Meat. Emerg Infect
Dis J, 11, 1958.
TOMBLINE, G., BELLIZZI, D. & SGARAMELLA, V. 1996. Heterogeneity of primer
extension products in asymmetric PCR is due both to cleavage by a structure-
specific exo/endonuclease activity of DNA polymerases and to premature stops.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 93, 2724-2728.
TOYODA, K., FURUSYO, N., TAKEOKA, H., MURATA, M., SAWAYAMA, Y. &
HAYASHI, J. 2008. Epidemiological study of hepatitis E virus infection in the
general population of Okinawa, Kyushu, Japan. J Gastroen Hepatol, 23, 1885-
1890.
VAN DER POEL, W. H., VERSCHOOR, F., VAN DER HEIDE, R., HERRERA, M. I.,
VIVO, A., KOOREMAN, M. & DE RODA HUSMAN, A. M. 2001. Hepatitis E
virus sequences in swine related to sequences in humans, The Netherlands.
Emerg Infect Dis, 7, 970-976.
VAN DER POEL, W. H. M. 2014. Food and environmental routes of Hepatitis E virus
transmission. Curr Opin Virol, 4, 91-96.
WILHELM, B. J., RAJIC, A., GREIG, J., WADDELL, L., TROTTIER, G., HOUDE,
A., HARRIS, J., BORDEN, L. N. & PRICE, C. 2011. A systematic
review/meta-analysis of primary research investigating swine, pork or pork
products as a source of zoonotic hepatitis E virus. Epidemiol Infect, 139, 1127-
1144.
WILSON, I. G. 1997. Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl
Environ Microbiol, 63, 3741-3751.
XIA, H., LIU, L., LINDE, A.-M., BELÁK, S., NORDER, H. & WIDÉN, F. 2008.
Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analysis of the complete genome of
a hepatitis E virus from European swine. Virus Genes, 37, 39-48.
YAMAMOTO, H., SUZUKI, J., MATSUDA, A., ISHIDA, T., AMI, Y., SUZAKI, Y.,
ADACHI, I., WAKITA, T., TAKEDA, N. & LI, T. C. 2012. Hepatitis E virus
outbreak in monkey facility, Japan. Emerg Infect Dis, 18, 2032-2034.
YATES, M. V., GERBA, C. P. & KELLEY, L. M. 1985. Virus persistence in
groundwater. Appl Environ Microbiol, 49, 778-781.
YAZAKI, Y., MIZUO, H., TAKAHASHI, M., NISHIZAWA, T., SASAKI, N.,
GOTANDA, Y. & OKAMOTO, H. 2003. Sporadic acute or fulminant hepatitis
E in Hokkaido, Japan, may be food-borne, as suggested by the presence of
hepatitis E virus in pig liver as food. J Gen Virol, 84, 2351-2357.
77
YUGO, D. M. & MENG, X.-J. 2013. Hepatitis E Virus: Foodborne, Waterborne and
Zoonotic Transmission. Int J Environ Res and Pub Heal, 10, 4507-4533.
ZHU, F. C., ZHANG, J., ZHANG, X. F., ZHOU, C., WANG, Z. Z., HUANG, S. J.,
WANG, H., YANG, C. L., JIANG, H. M., CAI, J. P., WANG, Y. J., AI, X., HU,
Y. M., TANG, Q., YAO, X., YAN, Q., XIAN, Y. L., WU, T., LI, Y. M., MIAO,
J., NG, M. H., SHIH, J. W. K. & XIA, N. S. 2010. Efficacy and safety of a
recombinant hepatitis e vaccine in healthy adults: A large-scale, randomised,
double-blind placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet, 376, 895-902.
ZUCKERMAN, J. N. 2003. Hepatitis E and the traveller. Travel Med Infect Dis, 1, 73-
76.
Manufactures manuals:
BIORAD. 2006. Real Time PCR applications guide. BioRad laboratories, Inc. p.2-4.
Retrieved from: http://www.gene-quantification.de/real-time-pcr-guide-bio-
rad.pdf. Accessed in: 10/04/2015.
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES. 2012. Real Time PCR handbook. Life Technologies
Corporation, p.5-8. Retrieved from: http://www.gene-quantification.de/real-
time-pcr-handbook-life-technologies-update-flr.pdf. Accessed in: 10/04/2015.
SIGMA-ALDRICH. 2008. qPCR Technical Guide. Sigma-Aldrich Co., p.9. Retrieved
from:http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigmaaldrich/docs/Sigma/Gen
eral_Information/qpcr_technical_guide.pdf. Accessed in: 10/04/2015.