Open Access

Effective detection of human adenovirus in hawaiian waters using enhanced pcr methods

Virology Journal20118:57

https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-422X-8-57

Received: 12 November 2010

Accepted: 8 February 2011

Published: 8 February 2011

Abstract

Background

The current criteria for recreational water quality evaluation are primarily based on measurements of fecal indicator bacteria growth. However, these criteria often fail to predict the presence of waterborne human pathogenic viruses. To explore the possibility of direct use of human enteric viruses as improved human fecal contamination indicators, human adenovirus (HAdV) was tested as a model in this study.

Findings

In order to establish a highly sensitive protocol for effective detection of HAdV in aquatic environments, sixteen published PCR primer sets were re-optimized and comparatively evaluated. Primer sets nehex3deg/nehex4deg, ADV-F/ADV-R, and nested PCR primer sets hex1deg/hex2deg and nehex3deg/nehex4deg were identified to be the most sensitive ones, with up to 1,000 fold higher detection sensitivity compared to other published assays. These three PCR protocols were successfully employed to detect HAdV in both treated and untreated urban wastewaters, and also in 6 of 16 recreational water samples collected around the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

Conclusions

Findings from this study support the possible use of enteric viruses for aquatic environmental monitoring, specifically for the essential routine monitoring of Hawaiian beach waters using the optimized PCR protocol to detect HAdV at certain water sites to ensure a safe use of recreational waters.

Findings

Occurrence of enteric virus contamination in recreational waters has been a major health concern worldwide in recent years [15]. However, the current recreational water quality criteria based on the concentration of fecal bacterial indicators (total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci) often fail to predict the presence of human pathogenic enteric viruses [69]. Therefore, enteric viruses have been suggested as alternative indicators of fecal contamination in aquatic environments [6, 10, 11] due to their low infectious dose [12, 13], long survival period in the environment [6, 14, 15], high resistance to several wastewater treatments [1618], and the stringent host specificity that makes them free of environmental multiplicity [11]. In addition, detection of human enteric viruses using the library-independent molecular methods (i.e. PCR) is much less laborious and time-consuming compared to the traditional growth-based assessment [11].

The European union regulation has already listed enteroviruses as a parameter governing water quality [11]. However, many studies have suggested that human adenovirus (HAdV), the only enteric virus with double-stranded DNA instead of RNA genome, would make a better candidate as a fecal pollution indicator because of its known stability and persistence in aquatic environments compared to other enteric viruses [11, 18, 19].

It is well known that monitoring the presence of enteric viruses could be challenging due to the relatively low level of viral particles existing in environmental waters. However, this limitation can be overcome by the use of improved methods for aquatic sample concentration, viral nucleic acids extraction, and more sensitive viral detection techniques [11]. There are currently a number of PCR protocols reported in literature for HAdV detection. However, little is known about their sensitivity or specificity for HAdV detection, particularly for detecting HAdV in environmental waters.

In this study, a total of 16 sets of published HAdV PCR primers, including 3 primer sets for nested PCR, were tested in a side-by-side comparison using a single source of viral DNA for determining detection sensitivity. The selected primer sets were summarized in Table 1. All primer sets were initially tested under standard laboratory PCR conditions with single source HAdV DNA extracted from an in vitro cultured cell sample using QIAamp DNA mini kit (Qiagen, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. As shown in Table 2, among all 16 sets tested, only 8 primer sets including hex1deg/hex2deg, nehex3deg/negex4deg, ADV-F/ADV-R, XuHex1/XuHex2, hexDEGF/hexDEGR, AdF/AdR, AdV1/AdV2, and AdV3ne/AdV4ne were able to generate PCR products of the expected sizes in a 25 μL volume reaction containing 1X Taq reaction buffer (Mg2+ free) (New England Biolabs, NEB, MA), 1.5 mM MgCl2 solution (NEB, MA), 200 nM of each dNTP (Sigma-Aldrich, MO), 0.1 μg/μL of BSA (NEB, MA), 400 nM of forward and reverse primers (Integrated DNA technologies, IA), and 2 units of Taq DNA polymerase (provided by Dr. Tung Hoang, University of Hawaii at Manoa), with a Master Cycler Gradient (Eppendorf, Germany). Amplification started with an initial denaturation at 94°C for 5 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 sec, annealing at 56°C for 30 sec, extension at 72°C for 30 sec, and a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. All PCR products were subjected to 2% agarose gel electrophoreis alongside a 50-bp DNA marker (NEB, MA), stained with Ethidium Bromide (Sigma-Aldrich, MO) and viewed with the Molecular Imager Gel Doc XR+ system (BioRad Laboratories Inc., CA).
Table 1

Oligonucleotide sequences used for detection of HAdV

Primer

Sequence (5'→ 3')a

+/-b

Target

Ampliconsize (bp)

References

Q-Padv-F

AACGGCCGCTACTGCAAG

+

Swine AdV hexon

68

Hundesa et al., 2009 [24]

Q-Padv-R

AGCAGCAGGCTCTTGAGG

-

   

hex1deg (outer)

GCCSCARTGGKCWTACATGCACATC

+

Hexon

301

Allard et al., 2001 [25]

hex2deg (outer)

CAGCACSCCICGRATGTCAAA

-

   

nehex3deg (inner)

GCCCGYGCMACIGAIACSTACTTC

+

 

171

 

nehex4deg (inner)

CCYACRGCCAGIGTRWAICGMRCYTTGTA

-

   

ADV-F

GCCACGGTGGGGTTTCTAAACTT

+

Hexon

131

Gunson et al., 2009 [26]

ADV-R

GCCCCAGTGGTCTTACATGCACATC

-

   

XuHex1

TTCCCCATGGCICAYAACAC

+

Hexon

482

Xu et al. 2000 [27]

XuHex2

CCCTGGTAKCCRATRTTGTA

-

   

hexDEGF

CAGGACGCCTCGGRGTAYCTSAG

+

Hexon

103

Damen et al., 2008 [28]

hexDEGR

GGAGCCACVGTGGGRTT

-

   

AdE1

TCCCTACGATGCAGACAACG

+

Fiber

967

Xu et al. 2000 [27]

AdE2

AGTGCCATCTATGCTATCTCC

-

   

AdF1

ACTTAATGCTGACACGGGCAC

+

 

541-586

 

AdF2

TAATGTTTGTGTTACTCCGCTC

-

   

AdF

CWTACATGCACATCKCSGG

+

Hexon

~75

Hernroth et al., 2002 [29]

AdR

CRCGGGCRAAYTGCACCAG

-

   

HAdV-ABCDEF-hexon25fc

CARTGGKCDTACATGCACATC

+

Hexon

 

Kuo et al., 2009 [30]

HAdV-E-hexon373r

CCAGRCTGTTGTAGGCAGTG

-

 

349

 

HAdV-F-hexon265r

CCACGGCCAGCGTAAAGC

-

 

241

 

hexAA1885 (outer)

GCCGCAGTGGTCTTACATGCACAGC

+

Hexon

300

Allard et al., 1990 [31]

hexAA1913 (outer)

CAGCACGCCGCGGATGTCAAAGT

-

   

nehexAA1893 (inner)

GCCACCGAGACGTACTTCAGCCTG

+

Hexon

142

Allard et al., 1992 [32]

nehexAA1905 (inner)

TTGTACGAGTACGCGGTATCCTCGCGGTC

-

   

JTVFF

AACTTTCTCTCTTAATAGACGCC

+

Fiber

117

Jothikumar et al., 2005 [33]

JTVFR

AGGGGGCTAGAAAACAAAA

-

   

AdV1 (outer)

CAAGATGGCCACCCCCTCG

+

hexon

329

Oh et al., 2003 [34]

AdV2 (outer)

CGATCCAGCACGCCGCGGATGTC

-

   

AdV3 (inner)

AATGGTCTTACATGCACAT

+

 

253

 

AdV4 (inner)

ACCCGGTTGTCGCCCACGGCCAG

-

   

a. R = A+G; Y = C+T;S = C+G;W = A+T;H = A+C+T;B = C+G+T;V = A+C+G;D = A+G+T;N = all

b. Polarity

c. Forward primer for both HAdV-E-hexon373r and HAdV-F-hexon265r

Table 2

Optimized PCR conditions and detection limits for each primer set

Primer

Stda

Optimized condition

Detection limit

  

Tannel

[MgCl2]

[primer]

 

hex1deg/hex2deg

54-60

1.5 mM

600-800 nM

10-5 X

nehex3deg/nehex4deg

58-60

2.0 mM

600-800 nM

10-6-7 X

ADV-F/ADV-R

51.6-55.4

1.5 mM

600-1000 nM

10-7 X

XuHex1/XuHex2

54-60

1.5 mM

1000 nM

10-5 X

hexDEGF/hexDEGR

59.2

3.0 mM

600-800 nM

10-5 X

AdF/AdR

60

1.5 mM

600 nM

10-6-7 X

AdV1/AdV2

51.6-55.4

2.0 mM

600-800 nM

10-4X

AdV3ne/AdV4ne

55.4

1.5 mM

400-800 nM

10-4 X

Hex1deg/hex2deg; nehex3deg/nehex4degb

  

10-7 X

AdV1/AdV2; AdV3ne/AdV4neb

  

10-5 X

a. Standard condition as described in text.

b. Nested PCR.

The 8 primer sets that successfully generated products of respective sizes (Table 1) were subjected to PCR condition optimization. Different annealing temperatures, MgCl2 concentration and amounts of primers were combined and adjusted to improve the sensitivity of individual detection protocols. The sensitivity of the detection assay was first evaluated at 6 annealing temperatures ranging from 50°C to 60°C. Using the obtained optimal annealing temperature, each set then was tested at 4 selected MgCl2 concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 mM. The last optimization step was to evaluate the effect of selected primer concentrations from 0.2 μM to 0.8 μM on detection sensitivity. The final optimized PCR conditions for each primer set are listed in Table 2. Detection sensitivity of each primer set was evaluated under the final optimized condition using a serial of 10-fold dilution of a single-source HAdV DNA as template. The detection limits were based on the highest dilution that gave a clear positive signal after PCR amplification. As shown in Table 2, the sensitivities among all tested primers ranged from 10-4 X to 10-7 X dilution, indicating a detection difference of 1,000 fold. Among all, sets nehex3deg/nehex4deg, ADV-F/ADV-R, and AdF/AdR were identified to be the most sensitive ones for ADV detection. Nested PCR using hex1deg/hex2deg and nehex3deg/nehex4deg exhibited similar sensitivity by showing the positive results with stronger detection signals when the same dilution was used. Due to the small size of the final product generated by AdF/AdR (less than 100 bp), only nehex3deg/nehex4deg, ADV-F/ADV-R, and nested PCR sets hex1deg/hex2deg and nehex3deg/nehex4deg were employed in a survey study directed to testing sewage and environmental water samples for naturally occurring HAdV and the detection protocol validation.

From previous experience examining human norovirus contamination, we learned that PCR conditions optimized using a single clinical source of viral nucleic acids might not act as specifically on total nucleic acids extracted from a complex microbial community, especially when the target viruses only exist in a very small amount compared to other organisms, which is often the case for naturally occurring enteric viruses in environmental waters. Urban wastewaters of human origin are known to contain a large volume of enteric viruses due to characteristic shedding in high numbers in the feces of infected individuals [11, 20]. Therefore, the three selected protocols were first validated for their potential application in HAdV detection in environmental samples by testing treated and untreated urban wastewater samples collected from Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (SIWWTP, Hawaii) during May 2010. The SIWWTP processes around 60 million gallons of wastewater daily, accounting for approximately 85% of Oahu's wastewater. Samples were collected from 3 different treatment stages, including untreated raw influence, post-primary clarifying/pre-disinfection stage, and post-disinfection/effluence. Water samples were concentrated according to the filtration-based method described by Katayama et al. [21] with modifications. Briefly, negatively charged type HA filter membranes (Millipore Corporation, MA) with a 0.45-μm pore size and 90-mm diameter were used with a vacuum pump system. MgCl2 was added to the sewage samples at a final concentration of 25 mM before filtration was performed. One hundred milliliters of wastewater sample was filtered through the membranes for viral absorption. The recovered membranes were subjected to nucleic acid extraction using the PowerWater DNA isolation kit (MoBio Laboratories, CA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Five microliters of the total DNA was used as the template for HAdV detection using the optimized PCR protocols with primer sets ADV-F/ADV-R and nehex3deg/nehex4deg. As expected, HAdV was detected consistently by the two detection methods in all three stages of the collected urban wastewater samples with clean, single bands as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Agarose gel electrophoresis of PCR detection of HAdV in urban wastewaters of three different treatments stages. (A) Amplified with primer set ADV-F/ADV-R. (B) amplified with primer set nehex3deg/nehex4deg. HAdV were detected from 100 mL of untreated raw influenced (lane 1), pre-disinfection (lane 2), and post-disinfection/effluence (lane 3) stages. Lane M = 50-bp DNA marker, lane C+ = positive control using HAdV DNA, and lane C- = no template control.

Following validation with sewage samples, we evaluated the three protocols for potential use in detecting naturally occurring HAdV in environmental water samples. Sixteen surface water samples were collected from different recreational water bodies composed of both marine and fresh waters around the island of Oahu during June 2010. Sample sites, conditions, and filtration volumes are summarized in Table 3. To ensure the reliability of water filtration and nucleic acid extraction processes, a field blank sample comprised of 2 L distilled water as a negative control, and a spiked sample made by adding 50 mL of HAdV-positive untreated wastewater sample into 2 L of seawater collected from Diamond Head Beach Park as a positive control were also carried out using the same filtration and DNA extraction procedures for all environmental samples. Surface waters collected from fresh water bodies were subjected to initial treatment with 25 mM MgCl2 for 5 min at room temperature prior to filtration.
Table 3

HAdV prevalence in Hawaiian urban wastewater and environmental waters

Sample

PCR

Nested PCR

  

primary

nested

Site

Condition

Volume

ADV-F ADV-R

nehex3deg nehex4deg

hex1deg hex2deg

hex1deg/hex2deg; nehex3deg/nehex4deg

SIWWTP influence tank

Sewage

100 mL

+

+

+

ND

SIWWTP clarifying tank

Sewage

100 mL

+

+

+

ND

SIWWTP effluence tank

Sewage

100 mL

+

+

+

ND

Sand Island State Recreational Area

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

+

Kailua Bay

Seawater

2.00 L

+

-

-

+

Waikiki Beach

Seawater

2.00 L

-

+

-

+

Ala Wai Canal

Freshwater

2.00 L

-

-

-

+

Wahiawa freshwater

Freshwater

2.00 L

-

-

-

+

Manoa stream

Freshwater

2.00 L

+

+

-

+

Ala Moan Park/Magic Island

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Diamond Head Beach Park

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Maili Beach Park

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Waianae/Pokai Bay

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Waialae Beach Park

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Maunalua Bay Beach Park

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Kalaka Bay Beach Park

Seawater

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Bellows Field Beach Park

Seawater

0.80 La

-

-

-

-

West Loch Community Shoreline Park

Seawater

0.80 La

-

-

-

-

Kailua Stream

Freshwater

0.50 La

-

-

-

-

Field Blank

dH2O

2.00 L

-

-

-

-

Spike control

S+Sb

2 +0.05 L

+

+

+

+

a. 2L sample water was initially prepared but actual volume passed through the filter membrane.

b. 2 L of seawater + 50 mL of sewage water.

c. ND = not done

As shown in Table 3, six sites including Sand Island State Recreational Area, Kailua Bay, Waikiki Beach, Ala Wai Canal, Wahiawa freshwater, and Manoa stream were all positive for HAdV by using the nested PCR protocol with hex1deg/hex2deg and nehex3deg/nehex4deg. As a comparison, Kailua Bay and Manoa stream were HAdV positive using the ADV-F/ADV-R PCR protocol, while HAdV was found in the surface waters of Waikiki Beach and Manoa Stream when nehex3deg/nehex4deg PCR protocol was employed. Manoa Stream was the only site at which all three protocols confirmed HAdV presence. All HAdV positive PCR products were recovered after electrophoresis from 2% agarose gel using QIAquick Gel Extraction kit (Qiagen, CA) by following the manufacture's instruction. The recovered DNAs were sent to the Advanced Studies in Genomics, Proteomics and Bioinformatics (ASGPB, University of Hawaii at Manoa) for sequencing to confirm the positive detection of HAdV.

The resulting positive detection of HAdV from environmental water by employing highly sensitive detection methods clearly indicates that low concentration is not an impossible obstacle to overcome when detecting human enteric viruses from environmental waters. In this study, the comparative analysis of several PCR assays currently available for HAdV detection has led to the identification of three highly sensitive PCR protocols, which were successfully employed for effective detection of HAdV in different types of aquatic environments in Hawaii. In addition, the nested PCR appeared to be superior to the other two protocols for detecting HAdV in environmental waters, suggesting this protocol should be a priority for use in facilitating early detection of HAdV contamination in future.

As the only enteric virus containing a double-stranded DNA genome, HAdV has been shown to be up to 60 times more resistant to UV irradiation than its RNA enteric virus counterparts [17, 22] and is able to persist and remain infectious in the environment for a long period of time [6]. In addition, HAdV occurrence was reported to have great correlation with other human enteric viruses, especially hepatitis A virus [19, 23]. With several well-established stable cell lines available, HAdV could also be subjected to infectious studies and future exposure risk assessment. Overall, HAdV would make an ideal candidate as a potential molecular index for enteric viral contamination of recreational waters.

It should be noted that this is the first report of HAdV detection in Hawaiian environmental waters using PCR methods to the best of our knowledge. The high prevalence of HAdV in Oahu waters revealed from this study should raise public awareness of a more serious beach contamination issue than previously expected. These new findings strongly argue the importance and necessity of including these established, sensitive HAdV detection protocols into routine water quality monitoring for better protection of the public from recreational waterborne illness associated with enteric viruses. Current research in this laboratory is directed to the establishment of in vitro infectivity assays for water samples collected from the HAdV positive sites and to the determination of a possible correlation between the PCR detection and actual viral infectivity, thus providing baseline information important for the interpretation and assessment of PCR-based HAdV detection and actual health risk to the public.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rey-Ian Transfiguracion for his assistance on water samples collection and Mary Margaret Byron for reviewing the manuscript. This work was supported in part by grants from the Centers for Oceans and Human Health (COHH) program, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (P50ES012740) and the National Science Foundation (OCE04-32479 and OCE09-11000).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Departments of Public Health Sciences and Microbiology, University of Hawaii

References

  1. Papapetropoulou M, Vantarakis AC: Detection of adenovirus outbreak at a municipal swimming pool by nested PCR amplification. J Infect 1998, 36: 101-103. 10.1016/S0163-4453(98)93414-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Lee S, Kim S: Detection of infectious enteroviruses and adenoviruse in tap water in urban areas in Korea. Water Res 2002, 36: 248-256. 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00199-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Albinana-Gimenez N, Clemente-Casares P, Bofill-Mas S, Hundesa A, Ribas F, Girones R: Distribution of human polyoma-viruses, adenoviruses, and hepatitis E virus in the environment and in a drinking-water treatment plant. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40: 7416-7422. 10.1021/es060343iView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Xagoraraki I, Kuo DHW, Wong K, Wong M, Rose JB: Occurrence of human adenoviruses at two recreational beaches of the great lakes. Appl Environ Microbiol 2007, 73: 7874-7881. 10.1128/AEM.01239-07PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Sinclair RG, Jones EL, Gerba CP: Viruses in recreational water-borne disease outbreaks: a review. J Appl Microbiol 2009, 107: 1769-1780. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04367.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jiang S, Noble R, Chu W: Human adenoviruses and coliphages in urban runoff-impacted coastal waters of Southern California. Appl Environ Microbiol 2001, 67: 179-184. 10.1128/AEM.67.1.179-184.2001PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Noble RT, Fuhrman JA: Enteroviruses detected by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction from the coastal waters of Santa Monica Bay, California: low correlation to bacterial indicator levels. Hydrobiologia 2001, 460: 175-184. 10.1023/A:1013121416891View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Fong TT, Griffin DW, Lipp EK: Molecular assays for targeting human and bovine enteric viruses in coastal waters and their application for library-independent source tracking. Appl Environ Microbiol 2005, 71: 2070-2078. 10.1128/AEM.71.4.2070-2078.2005PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Espinosa AC, Arias CF, Sánchez-Colón S, Mazari-hiriart M: Comparative study of enteric viruses, coliphages and indicator bacteria for evaluating water quality in a tropical high-altitude system. Environ Health 2009, 8: 49-58. 10.1186/1476-069X-8-49PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Drinking Water contaminant candidate list. EPA 1998, 815-F-98-002.Google Scholar
  11. Fong TT, Lipp EK: Enteric viruses of humans and animals in aquatic environments: health risks, detection, and potential water quality assessment tools. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2005, 69: 357-371. 10.1128/MMBR.69.2.357-371.2005PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP, Regli R: Risk assessment of viruses in drinking water. Risk Anal 1993, 13: 545-552. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Teunis PFM, Moe CL, Lui P, Miller SE, Lindesmith L, Baric RS, Le Pendu J, Calderon RL: Norwalk virus: how infectious is it? J Med Virol 2008, 80: 1468-1476. 10.1002/jmv.21237View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wetz JJ, Lipp EK, Griffin DW, Lukasik J, Wait D, Sobsey MD, Scott TM, Rose JB: Presence, infectivity, and stability of enteric viruses in seawater: relationship to marine water quality in the Florida Keys. MaMar Pollut Bull 2004, 48: 698-704. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2003.09.008View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Enriquez CE, Hurst CJ, Gerba CP: Survival of the enteric adenoviruses 40 and 41 in tap, sea, and waste water. Wat Res 1995, 29: 2548-2553. 10.1016/0043-1354(95)00070-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Fujioka RS, Yoneyama BS: Sunight inactivation of human enteric viruses and fecal bacteria. Water Sci Technol 2002, 46: 291-295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerba CP, Gramos DM, Nwachuku N: Comparative inactivation of enteroviruses and adenovirus 2 by UV light. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002, 68: 5167-5169. 10.1128/AEM.68.10.5167-5169.2002PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Thurston-Enriquez JA, Haas CN, Jacangelo J, Riley K, Gerba CP: Inactivation of feline calicivirus and adenovirus type 40 by UV radiation. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003, 69: 577-582. 10.1128/AEM.69.1.577-582.2003PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pina S, Puig M, Lucena F, Jofre J, Girones R: Viral pollution in the environment and in shellfish: human adenovirus detection by PCR as an index of human viruses. Appl Environ Microbiol 1998, 64: 3376-3382.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Crabtree KD, Gerba CP, Rose JB, Haas CN: Waterborne adenovirus: a risk assessment. Wat Sci Technol 1997, 35: 1-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Katayama H, Shimasaki A, Ohgaki S: Development of a virus concentration metods and its application to detection of enterovirus and Norwalk virus from coastal sweater. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002, 68: 1033-1039. 10.1128/AEM.68.3.1033-1039.2002PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Meng QS, Gerba CP: Comparative inactivation of enteric adenoviruses, poliovirus and coliphages by ultraviolet irradiation. Water Res 1996, 30: 2665-2668. 10.1016/S0043-1354(96)00179-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Muniain-Mujika I, Calvo M, Lucena F, Girones R: Comparative analysis of viral pathogens and potential indicators in shellfish. Int J Food Microbiol 2003, 83: 75-85. 10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00324-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hundesa A, Maluquer de Motes C, Albinana-Gimenez N, Rodriguez-Manzano J, Bofill-Mas S, Suñen E, Rosina Girones R: Development of a qPCR assay for the quantification of porcine adenoviruses as an MST tool for swine fecal contamination in the environment. J Virol Methods 2009, 158: 130-135. 10.1016/j.jviromet.2009.02.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Allard A, Albinsson B, Wadell G: Rapid typing of human adenoviruses by a general PCR combined with restriction endonuclease analysis. J clin microl 2001, 39: 498-505. 10.1128/JCM.39.2.498-505.2001View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Gunson RN, Maclean AR, Shepherd SJ, Carman WF: Simultaneous detection and quantitation of cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and adenovirus by use of real-time PCR and pooled standards. J Clin Microbiol 2009, 47: 765-770. 10.1128/JCM.01721-08PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu W, McDonough MC, Erdman DD: Species-specific identification of human adenoviruses by a multiplex PCR assay. J Clin Microbiol 2000, 38: 4114-4120.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Damen M, Minnaar R, Glasius P, van der Ham A, Koen G, Wertheim P, Beld M: Real-time PCR with an internal control for detection of all known human adenovirus serotypes. J Clin Microbiol 2008, 46: 3997-4003. 10.1128/JCM.00563-08PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hernroth BE, Conden-Hansson A, Rehnstam-Holm A, Girones R, Allard AK: Environmental factors influencing human viral pathogens and their potential indicator organisms in the blue mussel, Mytilu eduli : the first Scandinavian report. Appl Environ Microbiol 2002, 68: 4523-4533. 10.1128/AEM.68.9.4523-4533.2002PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuo DHW, Simmons F, Xagoraraki I: A new set of PCR assays for the identification of multiple human adenovirus species in environmental samples. J Appl Microbiol 2009, 107: 1219-29. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04300.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Allard A, Girones R, Juto P, Wadell G: Polymerase chain reaction for detection of adenoviruses in stool samples. J Clin Microbiol 1990, 28: 2659-2667.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Allard A, Albinsson B, Wadell G: Detection of adenoviruses in stools from healthy persons and patients with diarrhea by two-step polymerase chain reaction. J Med Virol 1992, 37: 149-157. 10.1002/jmv.1890370214View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jothikumar N, Hill VR, Lu X, Sobsey MD, Erdman DD: Quantitative real-time PCR assays for detection of human adenoviruses and identification of serotypes 40 and 41. Appl Envrion Microbiol 2005, 71: 3131-3136. 10.1128/AEM.71.6.3131-3136.2005View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Oh D, Gaedicke G, Schreier E: Viral agents of acute gastroenteritis in German children: prevalence and molecular diversity. J Med Virol 2003, 71: 82-93. 10.1002/jmv.10449View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Tong and Lu; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement