Comparison of Concentration Methods for Quantitative Detection of Sewage-Associated Viral Markers in Environmental Waters |
| |
| Authors: | W Ahmed V J Harwood P Gyawali J P S Sidhu S Toze |
| |
| Institution: | aCSIRO Land and Water, Ecosciences Precinct, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;bFaculty of Science, Health, and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia;cDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA;dSchool of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Pathogenic human viruses cause over half of gastroenteritis cases associated with recreational water use worldwide. They are relatively difficult to concentrate from environmental waters due to typically low concentrations and their small size. Although rapid enumeration of viruses by quantitative PCR (qPCR) has the potential to greatly improve water quality analysis and risk assessment, the upstream steps of capturing and recovering viruses from environmental water sources along with removing PCR inhibitors from extracted nucleic acids remain formidable barriers to routine use. Here, we compared the efficiency of virus recovery for three rapid methods of concentrating two microbial source tracking (MST) viral markers human adenoviruses (HAdVs) and polyomaviruses (HPyVs) from one liter tap water and river water samples on HA membranes (90 mm in diameter). Samples were spiked with raw sewage, and viral adsorption to membranes was promoted by acidification (method A) or addition of MgCl2 (methods B and C). Viral nucleic acid was extracted directly from membranes (method A), or viruses were eluted with NaOH and concentrated by centrifugal ultrafiltration (methods B and C). No inhibition of qPCR was observed for samples processed by method A, but inhibition occurred in river samples processed by B and C. Recovery efficiencies of HAdVs and HPyVs were ∼10-fold greater for method A (31 to 78%) than for methods B and C (2.4 to 12%). Further analysis of membranes from method B revealed that the majority of viruses were not eluted from the membrane, resulting in poor recovery. The modification of the originally published method A to include a larger diameter membrane and a nucleic acid extraction kit that could accommodate the membrane resulted in a rapid virus concentration method with good recovery and lack of inhibitory compounds. The frequently used strategy of viral absorption with added cations (Mg2+) and elution with acid were inefficient and more prone to inhibition, and will result in underestimation of the prevalence and concentrations of HAdVs and HPyVs markers in environmental waters. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
