Evaluation of real‐time PCR methods for quantification of Acanthamoeba in anthropogenic water and biofilms

Aims: To assess two real‐time PCR methods (the Riviere and Qvarnstrom assays) for environmental Acanthamoeba. Methods and Results: DNA extracted from Acanthamoeba castellanii taken from water and biofilms of cooling towers was analysed by the Riviere and Qvarnstrom assays. To quantify environmental Acanthamoeba, the calibration curves (DNA quantity vs cell number) were constructed with samples spiked with A. castellanii. The calibration curves for both quantitative PCR assays showed low variation (coefficient of variation of C_t≤ 5·7%) and high linearity (R² ≥ 0·99) over six orders of magnitudes with detection limit of three cells per water sample. DNA quantity determined by Qvarnstrom assay was equivalent between trophozoites and cysts (P = 0·49), whereas a significant difference was observed with Riviere assay (P < 0·0001). Riviere assay failed to detect Acanthamoeba in 21% (15/71) of the environmental samples which were positively detected by Qvarnstrom assay, while one sample (1·4%) was shown positive by Riviere assay but negative by Qvarnstrom assay. Moreover, Acanthamoeba counts by Qvarnstrom assay were greater than those by Riviere assay (P < 0·0001). Conclusions: Qvarnstrom assay performs better than Riviere assay for detection and quantification of Acanthamoeba in anthropogenic water and biofilms. Significance and Impact of the Study: Qvarnstrom assay may significantly contribute to a better knowledge about the distribution and abundance of Acanthamoeba in environments.     

Hepatitis E virus‐based evaluation of a virion concentration method and detection of enteric viruses in environmental samples by multiplex nested RT‐PCR

Aims: The prevalence of enteric viruses in drinking and river water samples collected from Pune, India was assessed. During an outbreak of HEV in a small town near pune, water samples were screened for enteric viruses. Methods and Results: The water samples were subjected to adsorption–elution‐based virus concentration protocol followed by multiplex nested PCR. Among 64 Mutha river samples, 49 (76·56%) were positive for Hepatitis A Virus, 36 (56·25%) were positive for Rotavirus, 33 (51·56%) were positive for Enterovirus and 16 (25%) were positive for Hepatitis E Virus RNA. Only enterovirus RNA was detected in 2/662 (0·3%) drinking water samples, and the samples from the city’s water reservoir tested negative for all four viruses. HEV RNA was detected in three out of four river water samples during HEV outbreak and partial sequences from patients and water sample were identical. Conclusions: The study suggests absence of enteric viruses both in the source and in the purified water samples from Pune city, not allowing evaluation of the purification system and documents high prevalence of enteric viruses in river water, posing threat to the community. Significance and Impact of the Study: The rapid, sensitive and relatively inexpensive protocol developed for virological evaluation of water seems extremely useful and should be adapted for evaluating viral contamination of water for human consumption. This will lead to development of adequate control measures thereby reducing disease burden because of enteric viruses.