Abstract
Influenza viruses cause recurring epidemic outbreaks every year associated with high morbidity and mortality. Despite extensive research and surveillance efforts to control influenza outbreaks, the primary mitigation treatment for influenza is the development of yearly vaccine mixes targeted for the most prevalent virus strains. Consequently, the focus of many detection technologies has evolved toward accurate identification of subtype and understanding the evolution and molecular determinants of novel and pathogenic forms of influenza. The recent availability of potential antiviral treatments are only effective if rapid and accurate diagnostic tests for influenza epidemic management are available; thus, early detection of influenza infection is still important for prevention, containment, patient management, and infection control. This review discusses the current and emerging technologies for detection and strain identification of influenza virus and their specific gene targets, as well as their implications in patient management.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Influenza is a well-known, highly contagious disease that has recurring epidemic outbreaks every year causing significant morbidity and mortality, and appears to have afflicted human populations since ancient times. The exceptional severity of the first influenza pandemic of the twentieth century, the 1918–1919 “Spanish flu,” which caused ~50 million deaths, accelerated the research effort in identifying the causative agent [1–3]. These research efforts have advanced knowledge of the epidemiology of influenza viruses in many different aspects.
Influenza viruses belong to the Orthomyxoviridae family, which currently contains three known types: A, B, and C. Both influenza A and B viruses cause the same spectrum of illness, such as fever, chills, severe malaise, myalgias, headache, sore throat, and dry cough, with influenza A viruses being the most prevalent cause of cases during the annual flu epidemic, while influenza C virus causes sporadic upper respiratory track illnesses in children and adolescents. Influenza A viruses also infect a wide variety of animals, including swine, horses, and birds (both domestic and wild). The natural reservoir of influenza A viruses is thought to be aquatic birds. Influenza B viruses circulate mostly in humans, while influenza C viruses infect humans, swine, and potentially dogs [1, 4–6].
Influenza viruses are enveloped viruses with a segmented negative strand RNA genome. Influenza A and B viruses contain eight distinct segments, while influenza C viruses contain seven segments. For influenza A and B viruses, the RNA segments 1–3 encode for transcriptase complex; segment 1 for polymerase protein PB2, segment 2 for polymerase protein PB1, and segment 3 for polymerase protein PA. For influenza A viruses, segment 2 also encodes PB1-F2 (an virulent factor), and PB1-N40 (unknown function) [7, 8]. The two major antigens of the virus are encoded by segments 4 (hemagglutinin, HA) and 6 (neuraminidase, NA). Segment 5 encodes for nucleocapsid protein (NP), segment 7 codes for two matrix proteins, M1 and M2 (BM2 for influenza B), and segment 8 encodes two proteins NS1 and NS2. Influenza B virus segment 6 encodes an additional protein, NB. Influenza C virus has similar segment composition (PB2, PB1, P3, NP, CM1 and CM2, NS1 and NS2) except it only contains one single glycoprotein with hemagglutinin, esterase, and fusion functions (HEF) [9].
Aquatic birds are thought to be the primordial origin for all influenza A viruses. Influenza A is subtyped by identifying the HA and NA segments. Currently, 16 HA and 9 NA distinct segments have been found in avian influenza A viruses detected in wild birds and poultry. This could possibly create 144 HA/NA subtype combinations, but only 55 of these HA/NA subtype combinations were detected in a large survey of 36,809 samples from wild birds [1, 10, 11]. Recently, a new strain of influenza A virus was isolated from little yellow-shouldered bats captured in Guatemala which was significantly divergent from known influenza A viruses subtype. The HA of the bat virus was designated as H17 and the NA as N10, which increase the total number of HA and NA segments [12]. These different HA and NA types provide the potential for a virus bearing new HA or NA by genetic reassortment to emerge. These new subtypes have a greater likelihood of evading the hosts’ immunity due to the naivety of the host immune system (antigenic shifts) and can cause pandemic episodes such as the 1918 event. In addition, the accumulation of mutations in two major antigenic glycoproteins, HA and NA, of influenza A viruses constantly creates new variant strains that elude the host immune response (antigenic drifts) and are the primary cause of the regular yearly influenza outbreak [1]. Interestingly, analysis of the evolution of influenza viruses found that the rate of mutation is host dependent with a much higher rate for viruses in mammalian hosts than in birds [13]. In addition to the basic understanding of the viruses (morphology, replication, genome composition, and organization), a myriad of studies in vaccine development, treatments and prevention controls, immune response, infection modeling, pathogenesis, transmission, and epidemiology have been published and extensively reviewed [14–26]. Despite extensive research and surveillance efforts, influenza viruses continue to outwit our efforts to control the disease by undergoing antigenic drifts or antigenic shifts that enable them to escape from preexisting immunity and continue to be a major cause of respiratory tract infection, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality each year.
The primary mitigation treatment for influenza outbreaks is the development of yearly vaccine mixes targeted for the most prevalent virus strains. Consequently, the focus of many detection technologies has evolved toward accurate identification of subtype/strain and understanding of the evolution and molecular determinants of novel and pathogenic forms of influenza that can provide important information for prevention, containment, patient management, and control of influenza infection. Furthermore, the recent availability of potential anti-influenza treatments are only effective if rapid and accurate diagnostic tests for influenza epidemic management are available because the maximal efficacy of such treatment must be started within 36–48 h of onset of symptoms [27–29]. The requirements for optimal treatment also lead to the development of numerous rapid diagnostic tests for influenza viruses. This review discusses the progression of detection methodologies and specific gene targets of current and emerging technologies for detection and strain identification of influenza virus infection as well as their implications in patient management; that is, how they improve diagnosis, treatment, surveillance, and prevention of influenza infection.
2 History of Laboratory Diagnosis of Influenza
The first human influenza A virus was isolated in 1933 using primary chick embryo culture, which revolutionized influenza viruses studies. To date, cultivating influenza viruses in eggs remains the modality for vaccine production [1, 3, 30]. Subsequent to the first studies in eggs, tissue-culture systems using canine kidney cells [Madin–Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cell line] were also developed for virus isolation. Historically, laboratory diagnosis of influenza viruses was viewed as of limited value for disease management because of the long turnaround times of viral culture, limited test sensitivity, and lack of antiviral treatment options [31]. However, differential diagnosis of influenza infection based on clinical signs and symptoms alone is insufficient to provide accurate diagnosis because similar clinical manifestations can also be caused by other respiratory tract viral pathogens, such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza viruses, coronaviruses, and rhinoviruses, etc.
Laboratory diagnosis of influenza viruses is based on two basic approaches: detection of the presence of the virus, or detection of a host immune response. In addition to viral culture, hemagglutinin inhibition assays (HAI), first described in 1942, were developed for the direct detection of the influenza virus. HAI is based on the principle that the HA on the virus surface can cause agglutination in the presence of erythrocytes. The HA subtype can be determined if agglutination is inhibited when the specimen is mixed with an antibody for a known HA subtype and red blood cells [32]. Besides being used to directly detect virus in a sample, an HAI assay can also be used to detect a host immune response depending on the format of the assay. Other approaches used that probe the host immune response to determine if an influenza virus infection has occurred are complement fixation assays (CF) and enzyme immunoassays (EIAs). CF assays, first developed in 1909 for syphilis diagnosis and then perfected in subsequent decades for general use in virology, use the properties of the innate immune system in which the complement in the serum interacts with antigen–antibody complexes and does not interact with sensitized red blood cells, which remain unlysed [33]. CF assays will report more accurately for patients that have received an influenza vaccine and have developed antibodies against envelope proteins, which renders HAI tests unreliable for detecting influenza infection [34–36]. EIAs first developed in the 1960s are versatile and widely used methods for virus detection based on the interaction of antigen–antibody, which has also been commonly applied for influenza detection. For this type of method, two or more antibodies (capture and detector antibodies) are used to interact with viral antigen and the detector antibody is labeled with enzyme or interacts with enzyme-labeled third antibodies that react with enzyme subtrate to produce colorimetric changes [35, 37, 38]. Although originally developed to probe the host immune response, this type of test has been developed for the direct detection of influenza virus.
As mentioned earlier, subtyping of influenza A is by HA and NA; the neuraminidase inhibition (NAI) assay, first developed in 1963, was used for detection and typing of NA. This assay is based on the principle that neuraminidase converts fetuin to N-acetyl neuraminic acid (5-acetamido-3,5-dideoxy-N-acetyl-d-glycero-d-galacto-nonulosonic acid; NANA). NANA converts to β-formylpyruvic acid by periodate oxidation, which then forms a pink chromophore when reacted with thiobarbituric acid. The presence of specific NA antibodies inhibits the occurrence of the reaction, and the specific NA type can be determined [39–41]. This method is rarely used since the development of the last group of detection methods (see below). While subtyping was initially developed to understand the distribution and composition of influenza strains, its current use is focused on monitoring and tracking high-risk strains such as H5N1 and H7N9 infections in domesticated birds and humans.
The latest addition to mature methods for directly testing for the presence of influenza viruses became possible with the development of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methodology in 1983 [42]. The methodology allows for the amplification of specific nucleic acid sequences to levels that can be detected by various methods. Nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAATs) have been widely adapted in diagnosis of infectious microorganisms including influenza viruses and are capable of targeting a variety of genes and can provide typing information.
3 Current Detection Technologies
There are several diagnostic tests currently available for influenza virus (influenza A and B) detection, including the above-mentioned viral culture and serologic tests, as well as immunofluorescence staining and nucleic acid-based tests (Table 1). The primary focus of the majority of diagnostic tests has been on serving biosurveillance, vaccine development, and pure research needs. For these applications, the tests are optimized for accuracy and sensitivity, but may take significant time and/or be expensive. Some tests have been developed for clinical or epidemic outbreak use and are discussed as a group as rapid diagnostic tests. While all the methods are capable of detecting influenza, they are not all optimal for all usages (best uses noted in Table 1).
Conventional viral culture remains the “gold standard” to which other methods are compared for accuracy but because of its long turnaround time (3–10 days) is not applicable when results are required rapidly. It remains a robust methodology that, besides detecting the presence of influenza and being essential for antiviral susceptibility testing, acts as a critical initial step when gathering specific information regarding circulating strains and subtypes of influenza viruses. Such information is needed to determine the genetic evolution of influenza viruses and guides decisions regarding treatment and chemoprophylaxis, and to formulate vaccines for the coming year [43]. Advances in viral culture techniques such as introducing new cell lines and shell-vial culture methods have improved the detection sensitivity and significantly decreased the turnaround time. The shell-vial culture method (turnaround time 1–3 days) is also versatile in detecting influenza viruses and other respiratory viruses causing similar symptoms, which increases the clinical utilities; thus, it is recommend by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a laboratory diagnosis procedure [43, 44].
Because individuals are repeatedly exposed to different strains of influenza virus over a lifetime, serologic tests usually require comparison of the antibody titer during convalescent phase with a sample collected during an acute phase. Furthermore, seroconversion usually occurs several days postsymptom onset (appears after ~2 weeks and peaks at 4–7 weeks after infection); thus, serological tests cannot provide results soon enough to guide clinical decisions and are not recommended for routine diagnosis. Although of no direct significance in patient management, serology tests are valuable in conducting seroepidemiological studies to assess the geographic extent, epidemiologic spectrum, and preexisting cross-reactive immunity of the infection [37, 38, 43, 45, 46].
Immunofluorescence staining by direct (DFA) or indirect fluorescent antibody staining (IFA) of clinical specimens, mainly using either monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies against NP and/or M proteins (as well as HA for influenza B viruses), is a relatively rapid technique for detecting influenza viruses (1–4 h). The antibodies are labeled with fluorescent dye or interact with second antibodies labeled with fluorescent dye, and the reactions are visualized under a fluorescence microscope. The sensitivity of these assays range from 40–100 % with specificity of 80–100 % compared to gold standard methods. Due to the complexity of the assays, the variations in detection sensitivity and specificity are probably caused by differences in technical expertise, specimen type, and quality (the presence of an adequate number of infected cells), as well as patient selection [27, 47, 48]. Even with the variation in detection sensitivity and their relatively extensive infrastructure requirements, the immunofluorescence staining methods have demonstrated high accuracy in detecting influenza virus and have been adapted for identification of specific influenza subtypes using monoclonal antibodies specific for HA subtypes, such as H1, H3, H5, and H7 [49–51]. DFA and IFA are valuable in confirming rapid diagnostic testing results [31, 52–54].
NAATs have gained a more prominent role in laboratory diagnosis of influenza because of superior sensitivity and specificity of the assays, rapid turnaround time, and compatibility with automation. The basic principles of NAATs are explained in detail in various reviews [55–59]. The following section reviews currently available NAATs for influenza diagnosis, their specific gene targets, and their implications in patient management.
Reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) and real-time RT-PCR are the most common NAATs used for influenza virus diagnosis. A simple search will turn up thousands of publications in PubMed on methods for detecting influenza virus using PCR-based methods. These methods can be used in any properly equipped research facility but depend on the individual laboratory obtaining the required reagents. While the sensitivity of all of these methods is usually very good, the specificity can vary widely depending on the specific sequence chosen as the target by the researchers. Because several different respiratory pathogens can cause symptoms similar to those of influenza, quite a few multiplex RT-PCR methods that target several gene targets at once have been developed for encompassing respiratory pathogens including influenza viruses. The coverage of the multiplex RT-PCR methods varies from only influenza viruses (different strains of influenza A and influenza B viruses or different type of influenza A viruses) to several different respiratory pathogens [60–66]. Real-time RT-PCR methods use fluorescence-labeled probes or fluorescent dyes to detect the PCR products without postamplification manipulation and added detection sensitivity, which further advances the utility of PCR-based methods for influenza detection. Indeed, the first commercially available kit for influenza was Hexaplex assay by Prodesse, Inc. (now Hologic Gen-Probe Inc., San Diego, CA). The Hexaplex assay is multiplex RT-PCR with postamplification hybridization with product specific probes, which is quite time consuming. The assay was later replaced by Pro-Flu+, which is a real-time multiplex RT-PCR kit (Pro-Flu+ targets M gene of influenza A viruses, NS1 and NS2 genes of influenza B viruses) [67]. Most of these PCR-based assays use the NP and M genes for type-specific detection of influenza viruses because these are highly conserved, while genes encoding surface antigens HA and NA are targeted for subtyping influenza A viruses [58, 67]. NS gene is also used in some of the assays for type-specific detection [68–71]. RT-PCR, multiplex RT-PCR, and real-time RT-PCR represent important tools for the timely and sensitive diagnosis of influenza A virus infections with turnaround times of 1–4 h; however, these assays require laboratory set up, experienced personnel, and are not suitable for point-of-care diagnosis, which reduces their effectiveness in immediate clinical management.
RT-PCR-enzyme immunoassay (PCR-EIA or PCR-ELISA) and PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphisms (PCR-RFLP) are derivatives of RT-PCR methods. PCR-EIA/PCR-ELISA use product-specific probes to capture PCR products or labeled primers that can be captured by covalent binding (i.e., biotin–streptavidin interaction). Most of these assays target NP gene for detection, with a few assays targeting NS and M genes, while HA genes are used for subtyping influenza A viruses [60, 72–78]. Although PCR-EIA/PCR-ELISA are more sensitive than conventional PCR-based assays, these methods require postamplification manipulation with longer turnaround times and require special laboratory set up, which may be useful for screening a large number of samples. PCR-RFLP uses the electrophoresis profiles of enzyme-digested PCR products to differentiate different strains of influenza viruses (genotyping) or discern drug-resistance markers. All eight gene segments have been targeted for PCR-RFLP analysis and the most common ones are HA, NA, and M genes [79–95]. These techniques also require postamplification processing, which is time consuming and labor intensive, and thus are more suitable for epidemic surveillance, but have no immediate impact in patient treatment.
In addition to PCR-based methods, there are several isothermal nucleic acid amplification methods developed for pathogen detection including nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA), loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), rolling circle amplification (RCA), exponential amplification reaction (EXPAR), isothermal and chimeric primer-initiated amplification of nucleic acids (ICANs), signal-mediated amplification of RNA technology (SMART), helicase-dependent amplification (HDA), transcription-mediated amplification (TMA), and strand displacement amplification (SDA) [96–106]. The basic principles of these methods have been reviewed elsewhere [55, 57, 59]. The most common isothermal amplification methods used for influenza detection are NASBA and LAMP, and these are described below in detail.
NASBA is an RNA-based nucleic acid amplification technique that was developed in 1991. It uses T7 RNA polymerase, RNaseH, and reverse transcriptase with 5′ primer containing the promoter sequence for bacteriophage T7 DNA-dependent RNA polymerase and 3′ primers specific for target DNA containing complementary sequence to detecting probes. The detecting probes can be labeled with either ruthenium-based electrochemiluminescent (ECL) tag, or biotin, or fluorescence. Depending on the probes used, the amplified products can be detected by electrochemiluminescence or ELISA, or fluorescence (real-time NASBA) [96, 107–109]. The main gene target for influenza A detection is HA gene while PA gene is targeted for influenza B detection [108, 110–117]. One multiplex NASBA was developed for influenza A and B, human parainfluenza virus 1–4, respiratory syncytial virus, rubella virus, and coxsackie virus, which uses M gene for influenza A and NS1 gene for influenza B detection [118]. Similar to RT-PCR, NASBA methods have high sensitivity, specificity, and similar turnaround time; however, these methods do not require thermocycling, have less stringent instrument requirements, and can be very useful for high-throughput application. In addition, real-time NASBA can be adapted and developed toward potential point-of-care assays for influenza detection that will have an impact on clinical management.
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method was developed by Notomi et al. in 2000. It uses multiple primers and DNA polymerase with strand displacement activity in reactions performed under isothermal conditions. These methods have high sensitivity, specificity, yields products in a short time frame (30–90 min), and the products can be viewed via turbidity or fluorescence, which simplifies the instrumentation requirements for the assay [97, 119]. The majority of the reverse transcription LAMP (RT-LAMP) methods are developed for avian, equine, and swine influenza detection, and relatively fewer assays for human influenza detection. For RT-LAMP methods, the HA gene is the main target for influenza A virus detection, and NP gene for influenza B virus detection [120–142]. The major limitation of RT-LAMP is the complexity of primer design, making it generally not suitable for large-scale multiplex reaction. However, the robustness, simplicity of the reaction setup, and minimal instrumentation requirements make RT-LAMP a potential point-of-care assay for influenza detection.
Tests for influenza detection that are of more immediate clinical relevance are rapid diagnostic tests. Rapid diagnostic tests are based on immunochromatographic lateral flow or membrane-based immunoassays that provide results in 30 min or less. They have been specifically designed for point-of-care screening. There are several commercially available tests, and most of the assays target influenza viral nucleoprotein, which can detect as well as distinguish influenza A and B (Table 2 lists the characteristics of 25 rapid diagnostic kits). None of these tests provide subtype information on influenza A viruses and the sensitivities of these tests are approximately 50–70 % with 90–95 % specificity when compared to the gold standard of viral culturing [27, 54, 143, 144]. Despite their low sensitivity, rapid diagnostic tests can be useful in patient and outbreak management, especially when other tests are not readily available [31, 43, 143, 144].
4 Emerging Multiplex Detection Technologies for Detection and Strain Identification
Multiplex methods provide the capability to simultaneously test several conditions to gain either greater typing information and/or test for several respiratory pathogens, including influenza viruses. Because the clinical presentation of influenza particularly in its early stages is so similar to several other respiratory pathogens, it is recognized that such methods are required to maximize the efficacy of relatively new therapeutic approaches using antiviral medicines. These methods face a more complicated path to FDA approval as diagnostics and so many are still in development and in research use only.
RT-PCR methods can be multiplexed, but the maximum number of detectable targets in a single assay is limited by capabilities of parsing out PCR products. For example, the number of detectable targets of real-time PCR is limited by the machine used to monitor the reaction, usually four targets due to cost considerations. This method monitors the fluorescence of different dyes, which must have sufficient separation in their emission peaks to distinguish them, and tracks the individual multiplex targets. For broader range detection, several emerging techniques based on multiplex PCR have been developed for respiratory pathogen detection, such as xTag® respiratory virus panel, ResPlex II™ panel v2.0, Multicode-PLx (EraGen Biosciences), RespiFinder assays, FilmArray Respiratory Panel, and others. All these assays require special instruments and are suitable for clinical laboratory testing but not for point-of-care diagnostics.
The xTag® respiratory virus panel (RVP) and RVP FAST were developed by Luminex Corporation (Austin, TX, USA) to detect influenza A (including subtype H1 and H3), influenza B, respiratory syncytial Virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), rhinovirus (RhV), and adenovirus (AdV) using fluorescent beads with specific antitag sequences that hybridized with specific biotin-labeled PCR products. For influenza A viruses, the gene targets used for testing are M genes for general detection and HA for subtyping H1, and H3, while prehemagglutinin gene is targeted for influenza B virus detection. The turnaround times for the assays are approximately 6–24 h, which has great utility in hospitalized patient management, and could potentially affect clinical management [145, 146]. Similarly, Multicode PLx RVP developed by EraGen Biosciences (recently acquired by Luminex and this product is discontinued) uses M genes as targets for influenza detection [147]. Based on a similar principle, Resplex II™ panel v2.0 was developed by Qiagen (Valencia, CA, USA) to detect influenza A and B viruses, RSV A and B, parainfluenza (PIV) 1–4, hMPV, RhV, AdV B and E, Coxsackieviruses/Echoviruses, Coronaviruses (CoV, strains NL63, HKU1, 229E and OC43), and Bocavirus (BoCV). The proprietary nature of the primers and probes makes it impossible to determine the gene targets [148].
RespiFinder® assays (RespiFinder® 15, 19, 22, and Smart 22) are based on the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) technology and developed by Patho Finder B. V. (The Netherlands) using M gene as the target for both influenza A and B viruses. The turnaround times for these assays are approximately 8 h, which has great utility in inpatient management, and could potentially affect clinical management [149, 150]. The FilmArray respiratory panel developed by Idaho Technology Inc. (now BioFire Diagnostics Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA) is based on multiplex real-time RT-PCR coupled with amplicon melt curve analysis for pathogen detection. For influenza A viruses, M, NS1, and HA genes are selected targets for detection, and HA gene is used for influenza B [151]. The FilmArray system is an automated system, including sample preparation to nucleic acid amplification, and requires very little hands-on time with turnaround times at approximately 1 h. While it is easy to use and provides rapid results, the low throughput and qualitative results may hinder its application in laboratories receiving large numbers of samples and in some clinical settings.
The INFINITI® plus analyzer (AutoGenomics, Vista, CA) is an automated platform that couples multiplex PCR with microarray hybridization. The INFINITI® Respiratory Viral Panel Plus is designed to detect 25 common respiratory viruses, including influenza A and B, PIV 1–4, RhV A and B, Enterovirus (EV) A–D, CoV (HKU1, OC43, NL63, and 229E), hMPV A and B, RSV A and B, AdV A–C and E. For influenza A and B, NP gene is targeted for detection and the turnaround time is approximately 7 h. This assay is designed for clinical laboratory and not for near-patient testing [152]. The INFINITI® FLU A-sH1N1 is designed to detect influenza A and differentiate between influenza A and subtype swine H1N1 only.
The padlock probes technique developed in 1994 by Nilsson et al. [153] uses two target-complementary oligonucleotides to hybridize with target sequence. Once hybridized to the target sequence, the probes can be linked through ligation and the reacted probes can be detected through a linker or amplified through rolling circle amplification. This unique technology has been applied for genotyping all HA and NA subtypes of avian influenza viruses [153–155].
RT-PCR/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (RT-PCR/ESI-MS) uses ESI-MS to analyze the base composition of PCR products. Based on this principle, PLEX-ID/Flu assay was developed for detecting and typing influenza viruses. All eight gene segments of influenza A virus and three gene targets (PB2, HA, NA) of influenza B virus were used in this assay [156–160]. Due to the special instrumentation requirements of this technique, it is more suitable for surveillance purposes.
Multiplex PCR using primers labeled with molecular tags of different molecular weight (mass-code tagging system developed by Qiagen) was also used for respiratory pathogen detection. The microbial identity is determined through analysis of cognate tags of the PCR products. The gene targets for this assay are M, HA (1–3, 5), and NA (1, 2) genes for influenza A viruses, and HA for influenza B viruses [161].
There are several highly multiplex platforms, such as Scalable Target Analysis Routine (STAR) Technology, which may be suitable for respiratory pathogen detection, but have not yet been developed for influenza detection [62].
DNA microarrays contain hundreds to tens of thousands of probes, and a microarray experiment provides massive multiplex detection capabilities that offer potential for simultaneous detection of many pathogens. The concept of using microarrays for broad-spectrum pathogen detection has its obvious appeal and has been explored for use in pathogen diagnostic applications. Various types of microarrays including spotted oligonucleotide microarrays, and high-density resequencing microarrays, have been used in assorted pathogen detection and have been reviewed in detail previously [162–166]. For influenza viruses, there are several different types of microarrays available for respiratory pathogen detection including influenza viruses and most of these arrays have comparable detection sensitivities and specificities to other molecular diagnostic tests. The gene targets of influenza viruses for these assays are mainly HA, NA, and M genes. NP and NS genes were also used in some of the microarrays [167–178]. Microarray technologies require specialized instrumentation and are more suitable for research and surveillance purposes.
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies differ from traditional Sanger chemistry by enzymatically or mechanically breaking down genomic DNA into smaller fragments, then ligating these fragments with adapters for sequence reading during DNA synthesis (sequencing by synthesis). These technologies furnish a large number of short sequence reads (current read length is ~50–500 bp). The principles of NGS and various platforms are explained in detail in various reviews [179–182]. NGS technologies can generate large sequence datasets on a short time scale, which has appeal in pathogen detection/diagnostics, but it still needs sophisticated bioinformatics support to accommodate high-depth datasets. A few studies have reported success in identifying microorganisms from biological samples. These technologies require specialized instrumentation, currently have low detection sensitivity, and have long turnaround time for bioinformatics analysis such that the NGS technologies are more suitable for genomic characterization of novel bacterial and viral pathogens, comparative genomic analysis, and genetic tracking [183–185].
5 Gene Targets of Diagnostics
The traditional targets for identification of influenza viruses have been the NP, M, or NS genes because these provide commonality in identification across different identification methods. All the diagnostic methods mentioned have versions designed to test one or all of these targets. Methods that use antibodies as part of the identification process invariably have cross reactivity so that even if a new strain variant is present, there is still the possibility for detection. For subtyping, HA and NA segments are the targets because these define the subtypes of the viruses and identify highly pathogenic strains; that is, avian H5N1 and H7N9. Newer NAAT methods are much more specific in matching the target and even small changes in sequence can result in a test targeting HA or NA to fail. Consequently, more conserved gene segments have been included in the range of genes targeted. A typical target is the matrix gene segment. Tests for this segment typically report only the presence of type and no subtype information is provided. It is possible to couple tests for this target with tests for the HA and NA, producing a test that will detect influenza with high confidence and will subtype if the strain is of a known type.
Since 1990, two types of anti-influenza drugs, namely, the neuraminidase inhibitors (oseltamivir and zanamivir), and the M2 ion-channel inhibitors (amantadine and rimantadine), have become available for the treatment and chemoprophylaxis of influenza infections [1]. These antiviral drugs are most effective if given early in the infection. Similar to antibiotics resistance that develops in bacterial pathogens, the use of these antiviral drugs has already revealed/induced the existence of resistant strains. For neuraminidase inhibitor, drug-resistance mutations developed to affect NA catalytic sites, which consisted of 8 functional residues (R-118, D-151, R-152, R-224, E-276, R-292, R-371, and Y-406) and surrounded by 11 framework residues (E-119, R-156, W-178, S-179, D-198, I-222, E-227, H-274, E-277, N-294, and E-425) (N2 numbering system). These residues are conserved in all influenza A and B viruses. Several mutations of the catalytic sites and surrounding framework were identified to be associated with reduced sensitivity to neuraminidase inhibitor; however, only H274Y (H275Y in N1 numbering) is unequivocally considered oseltamivir resistant, while I222R, I222K (I223R and I223K in N1 numbering) are associated with zanamivir resistance [186, 187]. For M2 inhibitor, drug resistance is associated with mutations that cause amino acid substitutions of residues 26–34 in the transmembrane domain of the M2 protein, and the predominant mutation that confers M2 inhibitor resistance is S31N [187]. Consequently, the segments that indicate antiviral resistance, the NA and M2 genes, have also become important gene targets as well for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based assays, such as sequencing (Sanger sequencing or pyrosequencing) and real-time RT-PCR allelic discrimination, to screen drug-resistance mutations.
6 Influenza C Virus
Influenza C virus, in contrast to its infamous cousins influenza A and B viruses, causes mild respiratory tract illness. As a result, it receives much less attention. Serological studies do indicate a wide distribution of influenza C virus and that most people have acquired antibodies to the virus early in life, which undermines its epidemiological and clinical impacts. Consequently, fewer studies provide information regarding the prevalence of active influenza C virus infection in the general population and few detection assays of influenza C viruses are available. While any of the assays already mentioned for influenza A detection could be applied for the detection of influenza C, cell culture and RT-PCR are the most common assays used for influenza C virus isolation and characterization [188–190]. A few multiplex RT-PCR methods developed for encompassing respiratory pathogens also include influenza C virus targeting NP and HEF genes. There is no rapid diagnostic test for influenza C detection [61, 64, 65, 191].
7 Conclusion
The current collection of detection methods for use in surveillance, vaccine selection, and pure research with regards to accuracy and speed of testing are all very mature and perform quite well for those uses. In this context, these methods do not really have any serious limitations. They only suffer serious limitations if they are applied for purposes other than what they were designed for, such as determining individual patient care. These methods suffer from their cost and/or long turnaround time not justifying the information provided in a clinical setting. For this very reason, rapid diagnostic tests were developed. While these tests are fast and simple, they suffer from a lack of sensitivity so that a positive result can be trusted as accurate but a negative result cannot be used to rule out influenza infection. The other issue for these tests is more a reflection of the context in which people are infected by influenza. While influenza is the major cause of respiratory illness for a portion of each year, there remain several other potential causes that all exhibit similar early symptoms, which is when intervention might be more effective. Consequently, rapid testing in clinical settings is normally applied only when more serious symptoms have already developed. This is because any test that only reports on one of these pathogens does not provide a great deal of aid to treatment practice when a patient only has early symptoms. Information about all possible causes of the early symptoms needs to be provided in the same test before the potential benefits of such tests will make sense in clinical treatment situations.
Methods that test for multiple pathogens simultaneously are the current diagnostic advancement being worked on that may significantly alter clinical treatment procedures. While a few multiple-pathogen methods have been developed, none is truly ready for use in a clinical setting. New technologies that allow the rapid detection of multiple pathogens from multiple markers in a single test will improve diagnostics for a large panel of respiratory pathogens that includes influenza viruses and better direct use of antivirals or antibiotics. Consequently, the gene targets used for detecting influenza viruses in future diagnostic tests are likely to broaden to include targets for typing, subtyping, and antiviral resistance identification in the same test. A key to advancing these tests to routine use in a clinical laboratory would be increased automation of steps within the various approaches. Even with an improved detection test that could be used in clinical settings, the question of whether clinical treatment procedures will actually change is not a foregone conclusion. The therapeutic management options are limited to a few antiviral treatments that need to be immediately administered and already there are indications of strains being resistant to these drugs.
The prospects for the use of NGS is much more difficult to predict with the current technologies. The current machines have been optimized for efficient read generation from single organisms with large genomes. Influenza virus is among one of the smallest genomes for an organism and normal examination of influenza is as a minor component from a sample that contains host genomic material. Until there is a significant change in the NGS technologies, it is unlikely that these methods will find use in the established clinical and surveillance settings. The more promising application of this technology is for new research to lead to a better characterization of rapidly evolving viral quasi-species and understanding of the evolution of the virus within a host. This has been an area of ongoing research with an excellent review on progress up to 2007 [192]. The data accessible from NGS systems has resulted in more recent research focusing on taking advantage of the new information that is available on the phylodynamics to give insight into the generation of new influenza strains. The implications of this understanding may help to direct the search for new antiviral treatments or alter the selection and production of vaccines [193–199].
References
Wright PF, Webster RG. Orthomyxoviruses. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, editors. Fields virology, vol. 1. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 1533–79.
Taubenberger JK, Morens DM. 1918 Influenza: the mother of all pandemics. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(1):15–22.
Taubenberger JK, Hultin JV, Morens DM. Discovery and characterization of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus in historical context. Antivir Ther. 2007;12(4 Pt B):581–91.
Ohwada K, Kitame F, Sugawara K, et al. Distribution of the antibody to influenza C virus in dogs and pigs in Yamagata Prefecture, Japan. Microbiol Immunol. 1987;31(12):1173–80.
Manuguerra JC, Hannoun C. Natural infection of dogs by influenza C virus. Res Virol. 1992;143(3):199–204.
Manuguerra JC, Hannoun C, Simon F, et al. Natural infection of dogs by influenza C virus: a serological survey in Spain. New Microbiol. 1993;16(4):367–71.
Chen W, Calvo PA, Malide D, et al. A novel influenza A virus mitochondrial protein that induces cell death. Nat Med. 2001;7(12):1306–12.
Wise HM, Foeglein A, Sun J, et al. A complicated message: identification of a novel PB1-related protein translated from influenza A virus segment 2 mRNA. J Virol. 2009;83(16):8021–31.
Lamb RA, Krug RM. Orthomyxoviridae: the viruses and their replication. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, editors. Fields virology, vol. 1. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 1487–531.
Fouchier RA, Munster V, Wallensten A, et al. Characterization of a novel influenza A virus hemagglutinin subtype (H16) obtained from black-headed gulls. J Virol. 2005;79(5):2814–22.
Munster VJ, Baas C, Lexmond P, et al. Spatial, temporal, and species variation in prevalence of influenza A viruses in wild migratory birds. PLoS Pathog. 2007;3(5):e61.
Tong S, Li Y, Rivailler P, et al. A distinct lineage of influenza A virus from bats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(11):4269–74.
Fitch WM, Leiter JM, Li XQ, et al. Positive Darwinian evolution in human influenza A viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88(10):4270–4.
Schultz-Cherry S, Jones JC. Influenza vaccines: the good, the bad, and the eggs. Adv Virus Res. 2010;77:63–84.
Carter NJ, Curran MP. Live attenuated influenza vaccine (FluMist(R); Fluenz): a review of its use in the prevention of seasonal influenza in children and adults. Drugs. 2011;71(12):1591–622.
Yamashita M. Laninamivir and its prodrug, CS-8958: long-acting neuraminidase inhibitors for the treatment of influenza. Antivir Chem Chemother. 2010;21(2):71–84.
Boltz DA, Aldridge JR Jr, Webster RG, et al. Drugs in development for influenza. Drugs. 2010;70(11):1349–62.
Lynch JP 3rd, Walsh EE. Influenza: evolving strategies in treatment and prevention. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;28(2):144–58.
Kreijtz JH, Fouchier RA, Rimmelzwaan GF. Immune responses to influenza virus infection. Virus Res. 2011;162(1–2):19–30.
Gustin KM, Belser JA, Katz JM, et al. Innovations in modeling influenza virus infections in the laboratory. Trends Microbiol. 2012;20(6):275–81.
Smith AM, Ribeiro RM. Modeling the viral dynamics of influenza A virus infection. Crit Rev Immunol. 2010;30(3):291–8.
Kuiken T, Riteau B, Fouchier RA, et al. Pathogenesis of influenza virus infections: the good, the bad and the ugly. Curr Opin Virol. 2012;2(3):276–86.
Guarner J, Falcon-Escobedo R. Comparison of the pathology caused by H1N1, H5N1, and H3N2 influenza viruses. Arch Med Res. 2009;40(8):655–61.
Belser JA, Maines TR, Tumpey TM, et al. Influenza A virus transmission: contributing factors and clinical implications. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2010;12:e39.
Jones RM. Critical review and uncertainty analysis of factors influencing influenza transmission. Risk Anal. 2011;31(8):1226–42.
Clark NM, Lynch JP 3rd. Influenza: epidemiology, clinical features, therapy, and prevention. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;32(4):373–92.
Gavin PJ, Thomson RBJ. Review of rapid diagnostic tests for influenza. Clin Appl Immunol Rev. 2003;4:151–72.
McKimm-Breschkin JL. Management of influenza virus infections with neuraminidase inhibitors: detection, incidence, and implications of drug resistance. Treat Respir Med. 2005;4(2):107–16.
WHO: Manual for the laboratory diagnosis and virological surveillance of influenza. 2011, p. 153.
Smith W, Andrews C, Laidlaw PA. A virus obtained from influenza patients. Lancet. 1933;2:66–8.
Petric M, Comanor L, Petti CA. Role of the laboratory in diagnosis of influenza during seasonal epidemics and potential pandemics. J Infect Dis. 2006;194(Suppl 2):S98–110.
Hirst GK. The quantitative determination of influenza virus and antibodies by means of red cell agglutination. J Exp Med. 1942;75(1):49–64.
Bialynicki-Birula R. The 100th anniversary of Wassermann-Neisser-Bruck reaction. Clin Dermatol. 2008;26(1):79–88.
Prince HE, Leber AL. Comparison of complement fixation and hemagglutination inhibition assays for detecting antibody responses following influenza virus vaccination. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2003;10(3):481–2.
Amano Y, Cheng Q. Detection of influenza virus: traditional approaches and development of biosensors. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2005;381(1):156–64.
Yamane N, Yuki M, Nakamura Y. Single radial complement fixation test for assaying antibody to influenza virus type-specific antigens. J Clin Microbiol. 1983;18(4):837–43.
Katz JM, Hancock K, Xu X. Serologic assays for influenza surveillance, diagnosis and vaccine evaluation. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011;9(6):669–83.
Behrens G, Gottschalk R, Gürtler L, et al. Influenza report 2006. In: Kamps BS, Hoffmann C, Wolfgang P, editors. Albanian, Chinese, Croatian, German, Indonesian, Italian, Mongolian, Serbian, and Slovenian: Flying Publisher; 2006. p. 225.
Ada GL, Lind PE. An immunological study of avian, viral and bacterial neuraminidase based on specific inhibition of enzyme by antibody. J Gen Microbiol. 1963;32:225–33.
Aymard-Henry M, Coleman MT, Dowdle WR, et al. Influenzavirus neuraminidase and neuraminidase-inhibition test procedures. Bull World Health Organ. 1973;48(2):199–202.
Pedersen JC. Neuraminidase-inhibition assay for the identification of influenza A virus neuraminidase subtype or neuraminidase antibody specificity. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;436:67–75.
Mullis K, Faloona F, Scharf S, et al. Specific enzymatic amplification of DNA in vitro: the polymerase chain reaction. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1986;51(Pt 1):263–73.
Influenza Symptoms and the Role of Laboratory Diagnostics. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/labrolesprocedures.htm.
McAdam AJ, Riley AM. Developments in tissue culture detection of respiratory viruses. Clin Lab Med. 2009;29(4):623–34.
Veguilla V, Hancock K, Schiffer J, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of serologic assays for detection of human infection with 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus in U.S. populations. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(6):2210–5.
Kumar S, Henrickson KJ. Update on influenza diagnostics: lessons from the novel H1N1 influenza A pandemic. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(2):344–61.
McQuillin J, Madeley CR, Kendal AP. Monoclonal antibodies for the rapid diagnosis of influenza A and B virus infections by immunofluorescence. Lancet. 1985;2(8461):911–4.
Shalit I, McKee PA, Beauchamp H, et al. Comparison of polyclonal antiserum versus monoclonal antibodies for the rapid diagnosis of influenza A virus infections by immunofluorescence in clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1985;22(5):877–9.
Percivalle E, Rovida F, Piralla A, et al. Rapid typing, subtyping and RNA quantification of influenza virus type A strains in respiratory secretions. New Microbiol. 2008;31(3):319–27.
Johnson J, Higgins A, Navarro A, et al. Subtyping influenza A virus with monoclonal antibodies and an indirect immunofluorescence assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(2):396–400.
She RC, Taggart EW, Petti CA. Comparison of 10 indirect fluorescent antibodies to detect and type influenza A specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(8):1177–80.
Habib-Bein NF, Beckwith WH 3rd, Mayo D, et al. Comparison of SmartCycler real-time reverse transcription-PCR assay in a public health laboratory with direct immunofluorescence and cell culture assays in a medical center for detection of influenza A virus. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(8):3597–601.
Landry ML, Ferguson D. SimulFluor respiratory screen for rapid detection of multiple respiratory viruses in clinical specimens by immunofluorescence staining. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(2):708–11.
Leonardi GP, Leib H, Birkhead GS, et al. Comparison of rapid detection methods for influenza A virus and their value in health-care management of institutionalized geriatric patients. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32(1):70–4.
Wolk D, Mitchell S, Patel R. Principles of molecular microbiology testing methods. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2001;15(4):1157–204.
Jungkind D. Tech.Sight. Molecular testing for infectious disease. Science. 2001;294(5546):1553–5.
Mahony JB, Petrich A, Smieja M. Molecular diagnosis of respiratory virus infections. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2011;48(5–6):217–49.
Ellis JS, Zambon MC. Molecular diagnosis of influenza. Rev Med Virol. 2002;12(6):375–89.
Ieven M. Currently used nucleic acid amplification tests for the detection of viruses and atypicals in acute respiratory infections. J Clin Virol. 2007;40(4):259–76.
Grondahl B, Puppe W, Hoppe A, et al. Rapid identification of nine microorganisms causing acute respiratory tract infections by single-tube multiplex reverse transcription-PCR: feasibility study. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37(1):1–7.
Bellau-Pujol S, Vabret A, Legrand L, et al. Development of three multiplex RT-PCR assays for the detection of 12 respiratory RNA viruses. J Virol Methods. 2005;126(1–2):53–63.
Caliendo AM. Multiplex PCR and emerging technologies for the detection of respiratory pathogens. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(Suppl 4):S326–30.
Shisong F, Jianxiong L, Xiaowen C, et al. Simultaneous detection of influenza virus type B and influenza A virus subtypes H1N1, H3N2, and H5N1 using multiplex real-time RT-PCR. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;90(4):1463–70.
Coiras MT, Perez-Brena P, Garcia ML, et al. Simultaneous detection of influenza A, B, and C viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, and adenoviruses in clinical samples by multiplex reverse transcription nested-PCR assay. J Med Virol. 2003;69(1):132–44.
Coiras MT, Aguilar JC, Garcia ML, et al. Simultaneous detection of fourteen respiratory viruses in clinical specimens by two multiplex reverse transcription nested-PCR assays. J Med Virol. 2004;72(3):484–95.
Beck ET, Jurgens LA, Kehl SC, et al. Development of a rapid automated influenza A, influenza B, and respiratory syncytial virus A/B multiplex real-time RT-PCR assay and its use during the 2009 H1N1 swine-origin influenza virus epidemic in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. J Mol Diagn. 2010;12(1):74–81.
Kehl SC, Kumar S. Utilization of nucleic acid amplification assays for the detection of respiratory viruses. Clin Lab Med. 2009;29(4):661–71.
Claas EC, Sprenger MJ, Kleter GE, et al. Type-specific identification of influenza viruses A, B and C by the polymerase chain reaction. J Virol Methods. 1992;39(1–2):1–13.
Pisareva M, Bechtereva T, Plyusnin A, et al. PCR-amplification of influenza A virus specific sequences. Arch Virol. 1992;125(1–4):313–8.
Minosse C, Selleri M, Zaniratti MS, et al. Improved detection of human influenza A and B viruses in respiratory tract specimens by hemi-nested PCR. J Virol Methods. 2007;141(2):225–8.
Ronkko E, Ikonen N, Kontio M, et al. Validation and diagnostic application of NS and HA gene-specific real-time reverse transcription-PCR assays for detection of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) viruses in clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(5):2009–11.
Cherian T, Bobo L, Steinhoff MC, et al. Use of PCR-enzyme immunoassay for identification of influenza A virus matrix RNA in clinical samples negative for cultivable virus. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32(3):623–8.
Puppe W, Weigl JA, Aron G, et al. Evaluation of a multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR ELISA for the detection of nine respiratory tract pathogens. J Clin Virol. 2004;30(2):165–74.
Munch M, Nielsen LP, Handberg KJ, et al. Detection and subtyping (H5 and H7) of avian type A influenza virus by reverse transcription-PCR and PCR-ELISA. Arch Virol. 2001;146(1):87–97.
Dybkaer K, Munch M, Handberg KJ, et al. RT-PCR-ELISA as a tool for diagnosis of low-pathogenicity avian influenza. Avian Dis. 2003;47(3 Suppl):1075–8.
Dybkaer K, Munch M, Handberg KJ, et al. Application and evaluation of RT-PCR-ELISA for the nucleoprotein and RT-PCR for detection of low-pathogenic H5 and H7 subtypes of avian influenza virus. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2004;16(1):51–6.
Chaharaein B, Omar AR, Aini I, et al. Reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for rapid detection of avian influenza virus subtype H9N2. Arch Virol. 2006;151(12):2447–59.
Chaharaein B, Omar AR, Aini I, et al. Detection of H5, H7 and H9 subtypes of avian influenza viruses by multiplex reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Microbiol Res. 2009;164(2):174–9.
Staeheli P, Grob R, Meier E, et al. Influenza virus-susceptible mice carry Mx genes with a large deletion or a nonsense mutation. Mol Cell Biol. 1988;8(10):4518–23.
Park KY, Lee MG, Ryu JC, et al. Evolutionary stasis of M1 gene of human influenza A viruses and the possibility of their subtyping by restriction analysis of M1 gene polymerase chain reaction product. Acta Virol. 1997;41(4):231–9.
Offringa DP, Tyson-Medlock V, Ye Z, et al. A comprehensive systematic approach to identification of influenza A virus genotype using RT-PCR and RFLP. J Virol Methods. 2000;88(1):15–24.
Saito R, Masuda H, Oshitani H, et al. Incidence of amantadine-resistant influenza A (genotype Ser-31-Asn) in nursing homes in Niigata, Japan. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 2000;74(8):646–52.
Cooper LA, Subbarao K. A simple restriction fragment length polymorphism-based strategy that can distinguish the internal genes of human H1N1, H3N2, and H5N1 influenza A viruses. J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(7):2579–83.
Coiras MT, Aguilar JC, Galiano M, et al. Rapid molecular analysis of the haemagglutinin gene of human influenza A H3N2 viruses isolated in Spain from 1996 to 2000. Arch Virol. 2001;146(11):2133–47.
Brett I, Werber J, Kilbourne ED. Rapid confirmation by RFLP of transfer to vaccine candidate reassortment viruses of the principal ‘high yield’ gene of influenza A viruses. J Virol Methods. 2002;100(1–2):133–40.
Motta FC, Rosado AS, Couceiro JN. Standardization of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis for mutant screening of influenza A (H3N2) virus samples. J Virol Methods. 2002;101(1–2):105–15.
Saito R, Oshitani H, Masuda H, et al. Detection of amantadine-resistant influenza A virus strains in nursing homes by PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis with nasopharyngeal swabs. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(1):84–8.
O’Donnell FT, Munoz FM, Atmar RL, et al. Epidemiology and molecular characterization of co-circulating influenza A/H3N2 virus variants in children: Houston, Texas, 1997–8. Epidemiol Infect. 2003;130(3):521–31.
Palm M, Leroy M, Thomas A, et al. Differential anti-influenza activity among allelic variants at the Sus scrofa Mx1 locus. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2007;27(2):147–55.
Poungpair O, Chaicumpa W, Kulkeaw K, et al. Human single chain monoclonal antibody that recognizes matrix protein of heterologous influenza A virus subtypes. J Virol Methods. 2009;159(1):105–11.
Guo L, Garten RJ, Foust AS, et al. Rapid identification of oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1) viruses with H274Y mutation by RT-PCR/restriction fragment length polymorphism assay. Antivir Res. 2009;82(1):29–33.
Nukiwa N, Suzuki A, Furuse Y, et al. Simplified screening method for detecting oseltamivir resistant pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus by a RT-PCR/restriction fragment length polymorphism assay. J Virol Methods. 2010;170(1–2):165–8.
Kiseleva IV, Larionova NV, Teley LC, et al. Restriction analysis of genome composition of live influenza vaccine. Vopr Virusol. 2011;56(3):28–32.
Fulvini AA, Ramanunninair M, Le J, et al. Gene constellation of influenza A virus reassortants with high growth phenotype prepared as seed candidates for vaccine production. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(6):e20823.
Sartika T, Sulandari S, Zein MS. Selection of Mx gene genotype as genetic marker for Avian Influenza resistance in Indonesian native chicken. BMC Proc. 2011;5(Suppl 4):S37.
Compton J. Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification. Nature. 1991;350(6313):91–2.
Notomi T, Okayama H, Masubuchi H, et al. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(12):E63.
Steain MC, Dwyer DE, Hurt AC, et al. Detection of influenza A H1N1 and H3N2 mutations conferring resistance to oseltamivir using rolling circle amplification. Antivir Res. 2009;84(3):242–8.
Wang B, Dwyer DE, Blyth CC, et al. Detection of the rapid emergence of the H275Y mutation associated with oseltamivir resistance in severe pandemic influenza virus A/H1N1 09 infections. Antivir Res. 2010;87(1):16–21.
Qian J, Ferguson TM, Shinde DN, et al. Sequence dependence of isothermal DNA amplification via EXPAR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(11):e87.
Isogai E, Makungu C, Yabe J, et al. Detection of Salmonella invA by isothermal and chimeric primer-initiated amplification of nucleic acids (ICAN) in Zambia. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005;28(5–6):363–70.
Horii T, Monji A, Uemura K, et al. Rapid detection of fluoroquinolone resistance by isothermal chimeric primer-initiated amplification of nucleic acids from clinical isolates of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Microbiol Methods. 2006;65(3):557–61.
Hall MJ, Wharam SD, Weston A. et al. Use of signal-mediated amplification of RNA technology (SMART) to detect marine cyanophage DNA. Biotechniques. 2002, 32(3):604–606, 608–611.
Vincent M, Xu Y, Kong H. Helicase-dependent isothermal DNA amplification. EMBO Rep. 2004;5(8):795–800.
Hill CS. Molecular diagnostic testing for infectious diseases using TMA technology. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2001;1(4):445–55.
Walker GT, Fraiser MS, Schram JL, et al. Strand displacement amplification—an isothermal, in vitro DNA amplification technique. Nucleic Acids Res. 1992;20(7):1691–6.
Malek L, Sooknanan R, Compton J. Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA). Methods Mol Biol. 1994;28:253–60.
Moore C, Hibbitts S, Owen N, et al. Development and evaluation of a real-time nucleic acid sequence based amplification assay for rapid detection of influenza A. J Med Virol. 2004;74(4):619–28.
Lau LT, Fung YW, Yu AC. Detection of animal viruses using nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA). Dev Biol (Basel). 2006;126:7–15 discussion 323.
Collins RA, Ko LS, So KL, et al. Detection of highly pathogenic and low pathogenic avian influenza subtype H5 (Eurasian lineage) using NASBA. J Virol Methods. 2002;103(2):213–25.
Collins RA, Ko LS, So KL, et al. A NASBA method to detect high- and low-pathogenicity H5 avian influenza viruses. Avian Dis. 2003;47(3 Suppl):1069–74.
Collins RA, Ko LS, Fung KY, et al. Rapid and sensitive detection of avian influenza virus subtype H7 using NASBA. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;300(2):507–15.
Shan S, Ko LS, Collins RA, et al. Comparison of nucleic acid-based detection of avian influenza H5N1 with virus isolation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;302(2):377–83.
Moore C, Corden S, Sinha J, et al. Dry cotton or flocked respiratory swabs as a simple collection technique for the molecular detection of respiratory viruses using real-time NASBA. J Virol Methods. 2008;153(2):84–9.
Ge Y, Cui L, Qi X, et al. Detection of novel swine origin influenza A virus (H1N1) by real-time nucleic acid sequence-based amplification. J Virol Methods. 2010;163(2):495–7.
Moore C, Telles JN, Corden S, et al. Development and validation of a commercial real-time NASBA assay for the rapid confirmation of influenza A H5N1 virus in clinical samples. J Virol Methods. 2010;170(1–2):173–6.
Lau LT, Banks J, Aherne R, et al. Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification methods to detect avian influenza virus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004;313(2):336–42.
Lau LT, Feng XY, Lam TY, et al. Development of multiplex nucleic acid sequence-based amplification for detection of human respiratory tract viruses. J Virol Methods. 2010;168(1–2):251–4.
Ahmad F, Hashsham SA. Miniaturized nucleic acid amplification systems for rapid and point-of-care diagnostics: a review. Anal Chim Acta. 2012;733:1–15.
Nemoto M, Yamanaka T, Bannai H, et al. Development of a reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for H7N7 equine influenza virus. J Vet Med Sci. 2012;74(7):929–31.
Bao H, Wang X, Zhao Y, et al. Development of a reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification method for the rapid detection of avian influenza virus subtype H7. J Virol Methods. 2012;179(1):33–7.
Dinh DT, Le MT, Vuong CD, et al. An updated loop-mediated isothermal amplification method for rapid diagnosis of H5N1 avian influenza viruses. Trop Med Health. 2011;39(1):3–7.
Nagatani N, Yamanaka K, Saito M, et al. Semi-real time electrochemical monitoring for influenza virus RNA by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification using a USB powered portable potentiostat. Analyst. 2011;136(24):5143–50.
Nemoto M, Yamanaka T, Bannai H, et al. Development and evaluation of a reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for H3N8 equine influenza virus. J Virol Methods. 2011;178(1–2):239–42.
Peng Y, Xie Z, Liu J, et al. Visual detection of H3 subtype avian influenza viruses by reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay. Virol J. 2011;8:337.
Sharma S, Parida M, Shukla J, et al. Molecular epidemiology of novel swine origin influenza virus (S-OIV) from Gwalior, India, 2009. Virol J. 2011;8:280.
Hatano B, Goto M, Fukumoto H, et al. Mobile and accurate detection system for infection by the 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus with a pocket-warmer reverse-transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J Med Virol. 2011;83(4):568–73.
Yoshida H, Sakoda Y, Endo M, et al. Evaluation of the reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as a screening method for the detection of influenza viruses in the fecal materials of water birds. J Vet Med Sci. 2011;73(6):753–8.
Nakauchi M, Yoshikawa T, Nakai H, et al. Evaluation of reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays for rapid diagnosis of pandemic influenza A/H1N1 2009 virus. J Med Virol. 2011;83(1):10–5.
Shigemoto N, Fukuda S, Takao S, et al. Rapid detection of novel influenza A virus and seasonal influenza A (H1N1, H3N2) viruses by reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 2010;84(4):431–6.
Nie K, Wang DY, Qin M, et al. Colorimetric detection of human influenza A H1N1 virus by reverse transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification. Bing Du Xue Bao. 2010;26(2):81–7.
Ma XJ, Shu YL, Nie K, et al. Visual detection of pandemic influenza A H1N1 Virus 2009 by reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification with hydroxynaphthol blue dye. J Virol Methods. 2010;167(2):214–7.
Postel A, Letzel T, Frischmann S, et al. Evaluation of two commercial loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays for detection of avian influenza H5 and H7 hemagglutinin genes. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2010;22(1):61–6.
Kubo T, Agoh M, Mai le Q, et al. Development of a reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for detection of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus as a novel molecular method for diagnosis of pandemic influenza in resource-limited settings. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48(3):728–35.
Shivakoti S, Ito H, Murase T, et al. Development of reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay for detection of avian influenza viruses in field specimens. J Vet Med Sci. 2010;72(4):519–23.
Gu H, Qi X, Li X, et al. Rapid and specific detection of H3 swine influenza virus using reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification method. J Appl Microbiol. 2010;108(4):1145–54.
Li QM, Ma XJ, Gao HC, et al. Evaluation of reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification for detection of avian influenza A H5N1 virus. Bing Du Xue Bao. 2008;24(3):178–84.
Chen HT, Zhang J, Sun DH, et al. Development of reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification for rapid detection of H9 avian influenza virus. J Virol Methods. 2008;151(2):200–3.
Imai M, Ninomiya A, Minekawa H, et al. Rapid diagnosis of H5N1 avian influenza virus infection by newly developed influenza H5 hemagglutinin gene-specific loop-mediated isothermal amplification method. J Virol Methods. 2007;141(2):173–80.
Imai M, Ninomiya A, Minekawa H, et al. Development of H5-RT-LAMP (loop-mediated isothermal amplification) system for rapid diagnosis of H5 avian influenza virus infection. Vaccine. 2006;24(44–46):6679–82.
Ito M, Watanabe M, Nakagawa N, et al. Rapid detection and typing of influenza A and B by loop-mediated isothermal amplification: comparison with immunochromatography and virus isolation. J Virol Methods. 2006;135(2):272–5.
Poon LL, Leung CS, Chan KH, et al. Detection of human influenza A viruses by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(1):427–30.
Cho CH, Woo MK, Kim JY, et al. Evaluation of five rapid diagnostic kits for influenza A/B virus. J Virol Methods. 2013;187(1):51–6.
Chartrand C, Leeflang MM, Minion J, et al. Accuracy of rapid influenza diagnostic tests: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(7):500–11.
Merante F, Yaghoubian S, Janeczko R. Principles of the xTAG (TM) respiratory viral panel assay (RVP Assay). J Clin Virol. 2007;40:S31–5.
Mahony J, Chong S, Merante F, et al. Development of a respiratory virus panel test for detection of twenty human respiratory viruses by use of multiplex PCR and a fluid microbead-based assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(9):2965–70.
Lee WM, Grindle K, Pappas T, et al. High-throughput, sensitive, and accurate multiplex PCR-microsphere flow cytometry system for large-scale comprehensive detection of respiratory viruses. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(8):2626–34.
Li H, McCormac MA, Estes RW, et al. Simultaneous detection and high-throughput identification of a panel of RNA viruses causing respiratory tract infections. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(7):2105–9.
Schouten JP, McElgunn CJ, Waaijer R, et al. Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(12):e57.
Reijans M, Dingemans G, Klaassen CH, et al. RespiFinder: a new multiparameter test to differentially identify fifteen respiratory viruses. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(4):1232–40.
Poritz MA, Blaschke AJ, Byington CL, et al. FilmArray, an automated nested multiplex PCR system for multi-pathogen detection: development and application to respiratory tract infection. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e26047.
Raymond F, Carbonneau J, Boucher N, et al. Comparison of automated microarray detection with real-time PCR assays for detection of respiratory viruses in specimens obtained from children. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(3):743–50.
Nilsson M, Malmgren H, Samiotaki M, et al. Padlock probes: circularizing oligonucleotides for localized DNA detection. Science. 1994;265(5181):2085–8.
Thomas DC, Nardone GA, Randall SK. Amplification of padlock probes for DNA diagnostics by cascade rolling circle amplification or the polymerase chain reaction. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123(12):1170–6.
Gyarmati P, Conze T, Zohari S, et al. Simultaneous genotyping of all hemagglutinin and neuraminidase subtypes of avian influenza viruses by use of padlock probes. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(5):1747–51.
Ecker DJ, Sampath R, Blyn LB, et al. Rapid identification and strain-typing of respiratory pathogens for epidemic surveillance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(22):8012–7.
Sampath R, Hall TA, Massire C, et al. Rapid identification of emerging infectious agents using PCR and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007;1102:109–20.
Sampath R, Russell KL, Massire C, et al. Global surveillance of emerging influenza virus genotypes by mass spectrometry. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e489.
Deyde VM, Sampath R, Gubareva LV. RT-PCR/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry approach in detection and characterization of influenza viruses. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2011;11(1):41–52.
Cordey S, Thomas Y, Suter P, et al. Pilot evaluation of RT-PCR/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (PLEX-ID/flu assay) on influenza-positive specimens. Open Virol J. 2012;6:64–7.
Briese T, Palacios G, Kokoris M, et al. Diagnostic system for rapid and sensitive differential detection of pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(2):310–3.
Bodrossy L, Sessitsch A. Oligonucleotide microarrays in microbial diagnostics. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2004;7(3):245–54.
Call DR. Challenges and opportunities for pathogen detection using DNA microarrays. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2005;31(2):91–9.
Loy A, Bodrossy L. Highly parallel microbial diagnostics using oligonucleotide microarrays. Clin Chim Acta. 2006;363(1–2):106–19.
McLoughlin KS. Microarrays for pathogen detection and analysis. Brief Funct Genomics. 2011;10(6):342–53.
Sengupta S, Onodera K, Lai A, et al. Molecular detection and identification of influenza viruses by oligonucleotide microarray hybridization. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(10):4542–50.
Townsend MB, Dawson ED, Mehlmann M, et al. Experimental evaluation of the FluChip diagnostic microarray for influenza virus surveillance. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(8):2863–71.
Mehlmann M, Dawson ED, Townsend MB, et al. Robust sequence selection method used to develop the FluChip diagnostic microarray for influenza virus. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(8):2857–62.
Lodes MJ, Suciu D, Elliott M, et al. Use of semiconductor-based oligonucleotide microarrays for influenza a virus subtype identification and sequencing. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(4):1209–18.
Lin B, Wang Z, Vora GJ, et al. Broad-spectrum respiratory tract pathogen identification using resequencing DNA microarrays. Genome Res. 2006;16(4):527–35.
Wang Z, Daum LT, Vora GJ, et al. Identifying influenza viruses with resequencing microarrays. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(4):638–46.
Lin B, Blaney KM, Malanoski AP, et al. Using a resequencing microarray as a multiple respiratory pathogen detection assay. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(2):443–52.
Lin B, Malanoski AP, Wang Z, et al. Application of broad-spectrum, sequence-based pathogen identification in an urban population. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e419.
Lodes MJ, Suciu D, Wilmoth JL, et al. Identification of upper respiratory tract pathogens using electrochemical detection on an oligonucleotide microarray. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(9):e924.
Lin B, Malanoski AP, Wang Z, et al. Universal detection and identification of avian influenza virus by use of resequencing microarrays. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47(4):988–93.
Metzgar D, Myers CA, Russell KL, et al. Single assay for simultaneous detection and differential identification of human and avian influenza virus types, subtypes, and emergent variants. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(2):e8995.
Cannon GA, Carr MJ, Yandle Z, et al. A low density oligonucleotide microarray for the detection of viral and atypical bacterial respiratory pathogens. J Virol Methods. 2010;163(1):17–24.
Bierbaum S, Konigsfeld N, Besazza N, et al. Performance of a novel microarray multiplex PCR for the detection of 23 respiratory pathogens (SYMP-ARI study). Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012;31(10):2851–61.
Metzker ML. Emerging technologies in DNA sequencing. Genome Res. 2005;15(12):1767–76.
Mardis ER. Next-generation DNA sequencing methods. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2008;9:387–402.
Metzker ML. Sequencing technologies—the next generation. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11(1):31–46.
Zhang J, Chiodini R, Badr A, et al. The impact of next-generation sequencing on genomics. J Genet Genomics. 2011;38(3):95–109.
Cheval J, Sauvage V, Frangeul L, et al. Evaluation of high-throughput sequencing for identifying known and unknown viruses in biological samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2011;49(9):3268–75.
Kuroda M, Katano H, Nakajima N, et al. Characterization of quasispecies of pandemic 2009 influenza A virus (A/H1N1/2009) by de novo sequencing using a next-generation DNA sequencer. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(4):e10256.
Kuroda M, Sekizuka T, Shinya F, et al. Detection of a possible bioterrorism agent, Francisella sp., in a clinical specimen by use of next-generation direct DNA sequencing. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(5):1810–2.
Samson M, Pizzorno A, Abed Y, et al. Influenza virus resistance to neuraminidase inhibitors. Antivir Res. 2013;98(2):174–85.
Laboratory methodologies for testing the antiviral susceptibility of influenza viruses: neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI). http://www.who.int/influenza/gisrs_laboratory/antiviral_susceptibility/en/index.html.
Anton A, Marcos MA, Codoner FM, et al. Influenza C virus surveillance during the first influenza A (H1N1) 2009 pandemic wave in Catalonia, Spain. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;69(4):419–27.
Matsuzaki Y, Ikeda T, Abiko C, et al. Detection and quantification of influenza C virus in pediatric respiratory specimens by real-time PCR and comparison with infectious viral counts. J Clin Virol. 2012;54(2):130–4.
Hirsila M, Kauppila J, Tuomaala K, et al. Detection by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of influenza C in nasopharyngeal secretions of adults with a common cold. J Infect Dis. 2001;183(8):1269–72.
Ramos AP, Herrera BA, Ramirez OV, et al. Detection of influenza C during an outbreak at an internal school, using a molecular tool; Havana, Cuba, September 2006. Int J Infect Dis. 2008;12(6):e129–30.
Nelson MI, Holmes EC. The evolution of epidemic influenza. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8(3):196–205.
Holmes EC, Grenfell BT. Discovering the phylodynamics of RNA viruses. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5(10):e1000505.
Bhatt S, Holmes EC, Pybus OG. The genomic rate of molecular adaptation of the human influenza A virus. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;28(9):2443–51.
Ito K, Igarashi M, Miyazaki Y, et al. Gnarled-trunk evolutionary model of influenza A virus hemagglutinin. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25953.
Carter RW, Sanford JC. A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918. Theor Biol Med Model. 2012;9:42.
Zinder D, Bedford T, Gupta S, et al. The roles of competition and mutation in shaping antigenic and genetic diversity in influenza. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9(1):e1003104.
McHardy AC, Adams B. The role of genomics in tracking the evolution of influenza A virus. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(10):e1000566.
Chen R, Holmes EC. The evolutionary dynamics of human influenza B virus. J Mol Evol. 2008;66(6):655–63.
Tan Z, Akerstrom S, Wee BY, et al. A new panel of NS1 antibodies for easy detection and titration of influenza A virus. J Med Virol. 2010;82(3):467–75.
Acknowledgements
The funding for preparation of this manuscript was provided by the Office of Naval Research via Naval Research Laboratory Base funding. The funding agent plays no role in the preparation and review of the manuscript. The manuscript is approved for public release by the Naval Research Laboratory. Both authors hold four patents related to resequencing microarray technology for respiratory pathogen detection that is currently licensed by Tessarae Inc. (Potomac Fall, VA, USA). We thank Drs. Michael Stockelman and Stella North for critical review of the manuscript. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent those of the US Navy, the US Department of Defense, or the US Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Malanoski, A.P., Lin, B. Evolving Gene Targets and Technology in Influenza Detection. Mol Diagn Ther 17, 273–286 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-013-0040-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-013-0040-9