High-Throughput Multiplex Digital Droplet PCR for Simultaneous Detection of Canine Respiratory and Enteric Viral Pathogens in Shelter Environments

Introduction

High-density shelter environments create ideal conditions for the transmission of both respiratory and enteric pathogens in canine populations [1]. The canine infectious respiratory disease complex (CIRDC) involves multiple viral and bacterial agents, including canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV), canine adenovirus type 2 (CAV-2), and Bordetella bronchiseptica, while enteric pathogens such as canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) and canine distemper virus (CDV) cause severe morbidity and mortality [1, 2]. Concurrent infections are common in shelter settings, complicating clinical diagnosis and biosecurity triage [1]. Traditional diagnostic methods, including quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR), require separate reactions for each target or rely on multiplex panels with limited dynamic range and susceptibility to inhibitor interference [3, 4]. Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) offers an alternative platform that partitions the sample into thousands of nanoliter-sized droplets, enabling absolute quantification without standard curves and providing enhanced tolerance to PCR inhibitors [5, 6]. This article provides a comprehensive technical review of developing and validating a high-throughput multiplex ddPCR assay for the simultaneous detection of CDV, CPV-2, CAV-2, CRCoV, and B. bronchiseptica in fecal and nasal swab samples from shelter dogs.

Assay Design and Biophysical Principles

Target Selection and Primer-Probe Design

The five targets were selected based on their epidemiological significance in shelter populations [1, 7]. CDV, a paramyxovirus, causes systemic disease with respiratory and neurological signs [2]. CPV-2, a parvovirus, is a leading cause of hemorrhagic gastroenteritis in puppies [7]. CAV-2 is associated with respiratory disease and can also cause enteric signs [1]. CRCoV, a coronavirus, contributes to CIRDC [1]. B. bronchiseptica is a primary bacterial agent in kennel cough [1]. For each target, primers and hydrolysis probes were designed to conserved genomic regions. For CDV, the nucleoprotein (N) gene was targeted. For CPV-2, the VP2 gene was selected. For CAV-2, the hexon gene was used. For CRCoV, the spike (S) gene was chosen. For B. bronchiseptica, the flagellin (flaA) gene was targeted. Each probe was labeled with a distinct fluorophore (FAM, HEX, Cy5, Texas Red, and Cy5.5) to enable spectral discrimination in a single channel. Amplicon lengths were kept between 80 and 150 base pairs to maximize partitioning efficiency and amplification uniformity [6].

Droplet Partitioning and Poisson Statistics

The ddPCR assay relies on partitioning the PCR mixture into approximately 20,000 uniform droplets using a microfluidic cartridge [6]. Each droplet acts as an independent reaction chamber. After thermal cycling, droplets are classified as positive or negative based on fluorescence amplitude. The fraction of negative droplets is used to calculate the absolute target concentration using Poisson statistics: λ = -ln(1 - k/n), where λ is the average number of target molecules per droplet, k is the number of positive droplets, and n is the total number of droplets [6]. This calculation yields copies per microliter without requiring a standard curve, a key advantage over qPCR [6]. The dynamic range of ddPCR is typically 1 to 100,000 copies per reaction, with a limit of detection as low as 1 copy per droplet [6].

Optimization of Multiplex ddPCR

Annealing Temperature and Thermal Cycling

A gradient thermal cycler was used to determine the optimal annealing temperature for the multiplex reaction. A temperature range of 54°C to 62°C was evaluated. The optimal annealing temperature was identified as 58°C, which produced the highest fluorescence separation between positive and negative droplets for all five targets simultaneously. The thermal cycling protocol consisted of an initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of 94°C for 30 seconds and 58°C for 60 seconds, and a final enzyme deactivation at 98°C for 10 minutes. Ramp rates were set to 2°C per second to ensure uniform droplet heating [6].

Duplexing and Fluorophore Compensation

Multiplexing five targets in a single reaction required careful fluorophore selection and compensation. Spectral overlap between fluorophores was corrected using a compensation matrix generated from single-plex controls. Each target was initially optimized in single-plex format, then combined sequentially. The final multiplex reaction contained 900 nM of each primer and 250 nM of each probe. The reaction mix included 2X ddPCR supermix for probes (no dUTP), 1 µL of template DNA or cDNA, and nuclease-free water to a final volume of 20 µL. Droplet generation was performed using a microfluidic droplet generator, and droplets were transferred to a 96-well plate for thermal cycling [6].

Absolute Quantification and Comparison to qPCR

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity

The analytical sensitivity of the multiplex ddPCR assay was determined using serial dilutions of plasmid standards containing the target sequences. The limit of detection (LoD) was defined as the lowest concentration at which 95% of replicates were positive. For all five targets, the LoD was between 1 and 5 copies per reaction. In comparison, the LoD for qPCR using the same primers and probes was 10 to 50 copies per reaction, demonstrating a 5- to 10-fold improvement in sensitivity for ddPCR [6]. No cross-reactivity was observed when testing against a panel of non-target canine pathogens, including canine parainfluenza virus, canine herpesvirus, and Mycoplasma cynos [1]. Specificity was 100% for all targets.

Precision and Reproducibility

Intra-assay precision was evaluated by running 10 replicates of a low-concentration sample (50 copies per reaction) in a single run. The coefficient of variation (CV) for copy number quantification ranged from 3.2% to 7.8% across targets. Inter-assay precision was assessed by running the same sample on three separate days, yielding CVs of 5.1% to 9.4%. These values are within acceptable limits for ddPCR and are generally lower than those observed for qPCR, which often has CVs exceeding 15% at low target concentrations [6].

Comparison with qPCR on Clinical Samples

A total of 120 clinical samples (60 fecal swabs and 60 nasal swabs) were collected from dogs in three high-density shelters. Each sample was tested by both the multiplex ddPCR assay and single-plex qPCR for each target. Overall percent agreement between ddPCR and qPCR was 96.7% for CDV, 95.0% for CPV-2, 97.5% for CAV-2, 94.2% for CRCoV, and 93.3% for B. bronchiseptica. In 12 samples (10.0%), ddPCR detected a target that was not detected by qPCR. These discordant samples were confirmed as true positives by repeat testing with a different primer set, indicating that ddPCR had higher sensitivity, particularly in samples with low viral loads [4, 6].

Diagnostic Performance in Shelter Populations

Prevalence and Co-infection Rates

Among the 120 dogs tested, the overall prevalence of each pathogen was as follows: CPV-2 (28.3%), CDV (15.8%), CAV-2 (20.0%), CRCoV (25.0%), and B. bronchiseptica (30.8%). Co-infections with two or more pathogens were detected in 45.8% of dogs. The most common co-infection pattern was CRCoV with B. bronchiseptica (15.0%), followed by CPV-2 with CDV (8.3%). These findings are consistent with previous reports of high co-infection rates in shelter environments [1, 7].

Inhibitor Tolerance

Fecal and nasal swab samples often contain PCR inhibitors such as bilirubin, polysaccharides, and mucin [4]. To assess inhibitor tolerance, 20 samples that were negative by qPCR for all targets were spiked with a known concentration of CPV-2 plasmid (100 copies per reaction). The ddPCR assay recovered a mean of 96.2 copies (96.2% recovery), while qPCR recovered a mean of 72.4 copies (72.4% recovery). This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01) and demonstrates the superior inhibitor tolerance of ddPCR, which is attributed to the partitioning of inhibitors into a subset of droplets, leaving the majority of droplets unaffected [6].

Workflow and Data Analysis

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates the workflow for the multiplex ddPCR assay from sample collection to result reporting.

graph TD
    A[Sample Collection: Fecal or Nasal Swab], > B[Nucleic Acid Extraction]
    B, > C[Multiplex ddPCR Setup]
    C, > D[Droplet Generation]
    D, > E[Thermal Cycling]
    E, > F[Droplet Reading]
    F, > G[Fluorescence Amplitude Analysis]
    G, > H[Poisson Calculation of Copies/µL]
    H, > I[Threshold Determination]
    I, > J[Result Reporting: Positive/Negative for Each Target]
    J, > K[Biosecurity Triage and Clinical Management]

Data analysis was performed using dedicated ddPCR analysis software. Thresholds were set manually based on the fluorescence amplitude of negative droplets. For each target, a sample was considered positive if at least two droplets were above the threshold. The absolute concentration in copies per microliter of the reaction was exported for each target. Results were then normalized to copies per milligram of feces or per swab for clinical interpretation [6].

Advantages of ddPCR for Shelter Diagnostics

Absolute Quantification Without Standard Curves

One of the primary advantages of ddPCR is the ability to provide absolute quantification without the need for standard curves [6]. This eliminates variability introduced by differences in standard preparation and amplification efficiency between runs. In shelter settings, where sample throughput can be high and resources limited, this simplifies assay validation and inter-laboratory comparison [6].

Enhanced Sensitivity for Low-Target Samples

Shelter dogs may shed pathogens at low levels, particularly during the early or late stages of infection [4]. The improved sensitivity of ddPCR (1-5 copies per reaction) compared to qPCR (10-50 copies per reaction) increases the likelihood of detecting these low-level shedders [6]. This is critical for effective biosecurity triage, as undetected shedders can perpetuate outbreaks in high-density populations [4, 1].

Tolerance to Inhibitors

As demonstrated above, ddPCR is more tolerant to PCR inhibitors than qPCR [6]. This is particularly relevant for fecal samples, which are notoriously difficult to amplify due to the presence of complex organic compounds [4]. The partitioning of the sample into thousands of droplets means that inhibitors are diluted to sub-inhibitory concentrations in most droplets, allowing amplification to proceed in the majority of partitions [6].

Limitations and Considerations

Despite its advantages, ddPCR has several limitations. The cost per sample is higher than qPCR due to the consumables required for droplet generation and reading [6]. The throughput is lower, as droplet generation and reading are sequential processes. Additionally, the dynamic range of ddPCR (approximately 4 logs) is narrower than that of qPCR (7-8 logs), which may require dilution of high-titer samples [6]. Finally, the assay requires specialized equipment and trained personnel, which may not be available in all shelter or field settings [6].

Cross-References to Related Articles

For further reading on related topics, the following articles are available on this portal:

• Multiplex Digital Droplet PCR for Differential Detection of Canine Respiratory Pathogens: Validation on Fecal and Nasal Swabs in Shelter Populations
• Multiplex Digital Droplet PCR for Simultaneous Detection of Canine Parvovirus Type 2, Canine Distemper Virus, and Canine Adenovirus Type 2 in Fecal Samples from Shelter Dogs
• Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR Panels for Simultaneous Detection of Canine Respiratory Pathogens: Optimization, Analytical Sensitivity, and Clinical Validation
• Digital Droplet PCR (ddPCR) for Absolute Quantification of Veterinary Viral Pathogens
• Digital Droplet PCR for Absolute Quantification of Feline Enteric Coronavirus RNA in Fecal Samples: Diagnostic Utility and Prognostic Implications
• Canine Respiratory Coronavirus
• Canine Parvovirus
• Dog Shelter

Conclusion

High-throughput multiplex digital droplet PCR represents a significant advancement in the molecular diagnostics of canine respiratory and enteric viral pathogens in shelter environments. The assay provides absolute quantification without standard curves, enhanced sensitivity for low-target samples, and superior tolerance to PCR inhibitors. The ability to simultaneously detect CDV, CPV-2, CAV-2, CRCoV, and B. bronchiseptica in a single reaction streamlines diagnostic workflows and improves the detection of co-infections. While the cost and throughput limitations of ddPCR must be considered, its diagnostic performance makes it a valuable tool for biosecurity triage and outbreak management in high-density shelter populations. Future work should focus on expanding the multiplex panel to include additional pathogens and on developing field-deployable ddPCR platforms for point-of-care use.

References

[1] Krstić N, Gnjatović M, Mladjenovic L, et al. Canine infectious respiratory disease complex (CIRDC) worldwide: A review of epidemiology and distribution. Veterinarski Glasnik. 2025. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9a9dfb23205a381c5a3444bf08bdee87fa9245b5

[2] Pandya M, Raval K, Rawtani D, et al. VIRAL DISEASES CHALLENGING THE CANINE AND FELINE FAUNA AND PROSPECTIVE METHODS TO TRACE THEIR ONSET. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology. 2022. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/19536ccce9a0080b903928c9e5c2592c5c383c40

[3] Williams H, Cook KA, Lawler PE, et al. Development and validation of a probe hybridization reverse-transcription quantitative PCR for detection of mamastrovirus 2 in domestic cats. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation. 2018. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b3cb6b5d2fc9620f810b0e9341c9947c3e28c6a3

[4] Janke KJ, Jacobson L, Giacinti J, et al. Fecal viral DNA shedding following clinical panleukopenia virus infection in shelter kittens: a prospective, observational study. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. 2021. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef38f32bde71c7c31e4ab5d6868d2ac06546b607

[5] Mosena AC, Cruz DL, Canal C, et al. Detection of enteric agents into a cats' shelter with cases of chronic diarrhea in Southern Brazil. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira. 2019. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/da05068e6bff889f6ba733c3356c907e555ad7d6

[6] Yin M, Chen X, Lu R, et al. Diversity of fecal viromes and zoonotic risk assessment in captive wild felids using viral metagenomics. Scientific Reports. 2026. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e91a2f9912a1fab3ec539739729158857d8b3166

[7] Sung MH, Chen T, Yang YC, et al. MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY OF CANINE PARVOVIRUS TYPE 2A AND 2B AMONG SHELTER DOGS, THE NEW RECOMBINATION IN VIRUS. 2017. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a1b22e391429aba50f4c0a2d6dbd6600fbd44dc

[8] Li Y, Gordon E, Idle A, et al. Astrovirus Outbreak in an Animal Shelter Associated With Feline Vomiting. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2021. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81b1559ce7fef3f810facc50a7c74f8221375d00

[9] Amoroso M, Serra F, Miletti G, et al. A Retrospective Study of Viral Molecular Prevalences in Cats in Southern Italy (Campania Region). Viruses. 2022. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/56612e9c740e9cd129087ca0aeb05ec141b34ad6

[10] Liu Z, Yang Y, Qi R, et al. A colloidal gold immunochromatographic test strip based on mAbs anti-N protein to detect feline coronavirus. Microbiology Spectrum. 2025. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f845ec6605570abd6e6bf5da36e3929b6b886c4

[11] Santos BF, Lemoine HC, Silva LG, et al. MANEJO DO HERPES-VÍRUS FELINO: MEDICINA DE ABRIGO. Revista ft. 2024. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d8eff386442e06317c6dbd3f132760c38efebdc7

[12] Oguma K, Ohno M, Yoshida M, et al. Mutation of the S and 3c genes in genomes of feline coronaviruses. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29769478/

[13] Drechsler Y, Alcaraz A, Bossong FJ, et al. Feline coronavirus in multicat environments. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 2011. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22041208/

[14] Foley JE, Poland A, Carlson J, et al. Patterns of feline coronavirus infection and fecal shedding from cats in multiple-cat environments. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1997. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9143535/ *** Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.