Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR for Simultaneous Detection of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus, Transmissible Gastroenteritis Virus, and Porcine Deltacoronavirus in Oral Fluids: Analytical Sensitivity, Specificity, and Field Validation

Introduction

Porcine enteric coronaviruses (PECoVs) represent a major cause of acute gastroenteritis in neonatal and weaned pigs, leading to significant economic losses in the global swine industry [1, 2]. The three primary viral agents responsible for this clinical syndrome are Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDV), Transmissible Gastroenteritis Virus (TGEV), and Porcine Deltacoronavirus (PDCoV) [3, 4]. These viruses induce nearly indistinguishable clinical signs, including profuse watery diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, and high mortality in young piglets, which complicates differential diagnosis based solely on clinical observation [5, 6]. Co-infections involving two or all three of these pathogens are frequently reported in field settings, further underscoring the need for rapid, sensitive, and multiplexed diagnostic tools [7, 6].

Traditional diagnostic methods, such as virus isolation, electron microscopy, and conventional endpoint PCR, are labor-intensive, time-consuming, and often lack the sensitivity required for detecting low viral loads in subclinically infected animals [8, 9]. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has become the gold standard for molecular detection of RNA viruses due to its high analytical sensitivity, quantitative capacity, and rapid turnaround time [2, 5]. However, singleplex assays require separate reactions for each target, increasing reagent costs, sample volume requirements, and labor [3, 4].

The development of multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays that simultaneously detect and differentiate PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV in a single reaction addresses these limitations [1, 6]. Furthermore, the use of oral fluids as a non-invasive sample matrix offers substantial advantages for herd-level surveillance, as it allows for pooled sampling of multiple animals without the stress and risk associated with individual rectal swabbing or fecal collection [10, 11]. This article provides a comprehensive review of the design, analytical validation, and field application of a multiplex real-time RT-PCR assay targeting these three swine enteric coronaviruses in oral fluid specimens.

Assay Design and Primer/Probe Selection

The design of a robust multiplex assay requires careful selection of target gene regions that are highly conserved within each virus species but sufficiently divergent to prevent cross-reactivity between targets [2, 3]. Most published multiplex assays for PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV target the nucleocapsid (N) gene, the membrane (M) gene, or the spike (S) gene [4, 6]. The N gene is often preferred for diagnostic assays because it is present in high copy numbers during infection and exhibits relatively conserved sequences among strains of the same virus [11]. The M gene, encoding a structural membrane protein, is also highly conserved and has been successfully employed in multiplex formats [4]. The S gene, while more variable, can provide additional discriminatory power for differentiating closely related strains [5, 6].

In a representative multiplex assay described by Yan Li et al., specific primers and TaqMan probes were designed targeting the M gene of PEDV, the S gene of TGEV, and the M gene of PDCoV [4]. Each probe was labeled with a distinct fluorophore (e.g., FAM, HEX, and Cy5) to enable simultaneous detection in a single channel of a real-time PCR instrument [4]. Another multiplex assay developed by Jianpeng Chen et al. targeted the PEDV M gene, TGEV S gene, and PDCoV N gene, incorporating a porcine beta-actin gene as an internal control to monitor sample quality and extraction efficiency [6]. The inclusion of an internal control is critical for oral fluid samples, which may contain PCR inhibitors originating from saliva, feed, or environmental contaminants [6, 10].

The thermodynamic properties of primers and probes, including melting temperature (Tm), GC content, and secondary structure formation, must be optimized to ensure balanced amplification efficiencies across all targets [2, 3]. Primer dimers and non-specific interactions between multiplex components can severely reduce assay sensitivity and specificity [5]. In silico analysis using BLAST and alignment tools is typically performed to confirm that primer and probe sequences are specific to the intended targets and do not share significant homology with other porcine viruses, including Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV), Porcine Circovirus Type 2 (PCV2), or Swine Influenza A Virus (SIV) [1, 7].

Analytical Sensitivity and Limit of Detection

Analytical sensitivity, expressed as the limit of detection (LoD), is defined as the lowest concentration of target nucleic acid that can be reliably detected with a predefined probability (typically 95%) [8, 9]. For multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays targeting PECoVs, LoD is commonly determined using serial ten-fold dilutions of in vitro transcribed RNA or quantified viral genomic RNA [3, 4].

The multiplex assay described by Yan Li et al. achieved a detection limit of 2.95 x 10^0 copies per microliter for each of the three viruses, demonstrating exceptionally high sensitivity [4]. Similarly, Jianpeng Chen et al. reported an LoD of 10 copies per microliter for PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV using their multiplex qPCR assay [6]. These values are comparable to or better than those reported for singleplex assays, indicating that multiplexing does not necessarily compromise analytical sensitivity when optimized [2, 5]. In a separate study, a duplex nanoparticle-assisted PCR assay for PEDV and TGEV achieved detection limits of 7.6 x 10^1 and 8.5 x 10^1 copies per microliter, respectively, which was ten-fold more sensitive than conventional PCR [11].

The analytical sensitivity of multiplex assays can be influenced by several factors, including the efficiency of the reverse transcription step, the concentration of primers and probes, the type of polymerase used, and the presence of competing reactions in the multiplex format [3, 7]. To ensure robust performance, standard curves for each target are generated by plotting cycle threshold (Ct) values against log-transformed RNA copy numbers [2, 4]. Amplification efficiencies between 90% and 110% and correlation coefficients (R^2) greater than 0.98 are generally considered acceptable for diagnostic applications [5, 8].

Analytical Specificity and Cross-Reactivity Testing

Analytical specificity refers to the ability of an assay to detect the intended target sequences without generating false-positive signals from non-target organisms [1, 9]. For a multiplex assay targeting PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV, cross-reactivity must be evaluated against a panel of other porcine enteric and respiratory viruses, as well as common bacterial and fungal flora present in oral fluids [2, 4].

Typical cross-reactivity panels include Porcine Rotavirus (groups A, B, and C), Porcine Kobuvirus, Porcine Astrovirus, Porcine Sapelovirus, Porcine Teschovirus, Porcine Hemagglutinating Encephalomyelitis Virus (PHEV), and Porcine Circovirus Type 2 (PCV2) [3, 6]. In the multiplex assay developed by Yan Li et al., no cross-reactivity was observed with any of the non-target pathogens tested, confirming high analytical specificity [4]. Similarly, Jianpeng Chen et al. reported that their multiplex qPCR assay did not cross-react with common porcine viruses, including PRRSV and Pseudorabies Virus (PRV) [6].

The specificity of the assay is largely determined by the uniqueness of the primer and probe sequences [5, 7]. TaqMan probes, which rely on the 5' nuclease activity of DNA polymerase to generate a fluorescent signal only upon specific hybridization, provide an additional layer of specificity compared to SYBR Green-based assays [2, 8]. In silico analysis followed by empirical testing against a comprehensive panel of pathogens is essential to validate specificity before field deployment [1, 4].

Oral Fluids as a Diagnostic Matrix

Oral fluids have emerged as a practical and cost-effective sample type for herd-level surveillance of swine pathogens [10, 11]. Collection involves suspending a cotton rope in a pen for 20 to 30 minutes, allowing pigs to chew on it, after which the absorbed saliva is wrung out into a collection container [10]. This method is non-invasive, reduces animal stress, and enables sampling of multiple animals simultaneously, providing a representative picture of the health status of the entire pen or barn [9, 10].

For enteric coronavirus detection, oral fluids offer several advantages over traditional fecal samples. Fecal samples can be difficult to collect from individual animals, especially in large commercial operations, and may contain high levels of PCR inhibitors such as bile salts, polysaccharides, and complex polysaccharides [3, 11]. Oral fluids, while also containing inhibitors such as mucins and salivary enzymes, are generally more amenable to nucleic acid extraction and purification using commercial kits [10]. Furthermore, oral fluids have been shown to contain detectable levels of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV RNA during acute infection, likely due to fecal-oral contamination of the environment and subsequent ingestion or contact with oral mucosa [4, 6].

However, the sensitivity of oral fluid testing for enteric viruses may be lower than that of fecal testing, particularly in the early or late stages of infection when viral shedding in feces is low [2, 9]. The dilution effect inherent in pooled sampling can also reduce the concentration of viral RNA below the detection limit of the assay [10]. Therefore, it is critical to validate the multiplex assay specifically for oral fluid matrices, including the determination of matrix-specific LoD and the evaluation of inhibition rates using spiked negative samples [1, 4].

Field Validation and Diagnostic Performance

Field validation is an essential step in assessing the real-world performance of a multiplex assay [7, 6]. This involves testing a large number of clinical samples collected from farms with known or suspected enteric disease outbreaks and comparing the results to those obtained using reference methods, such as singleplex real-time RT-PCR or virus isolation [2, 4].

In a field study involving 160 clinical samples from pigs with diarrhea, Yan Li et al. reported positive rates of 38.13% for PEDV, 1.88% for TGEV, and 5.00% for PDCoV using their multiplex qRT-PCR assay [4]. Co-infection rates were 1.25% for PEDV+TGEV, 1.25% for PEDV+PDCoV, and 0.63% for triple infection with PEDV+TGEV+PDCoV [4]. The positive coincidence rate between the multiplex assay and single-reaction qRT-PCR was 100%, indicating excellent diagnostic agreement [4].

In a larger study by Jianpeng Chen et al., 462 fecal or small intestine samples were collected from five provinces in China [6]. The discrete positive rates were 19.70% for PEDV, 0.87% for TGEV, and 10.17% for PDCoV [6]. Notably, mixed infection rates were substantial, with PEDV/PDCoV co-infection detected in 23.16% of samples and triple infection in 11.90% of samples [6]. These findings highlight the high prevalence of co-infections in field settings and underscore the utility of multiplex assays for comprehensive surveillance [1, 6].

Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity are calculated by comparing multiplex assay results to a gold standard [5, 8]. In the studies reviewed, diagnostic sensitivity for each target exceeded 95%, and diagnostic specificity approached 100% [4, 6]. The use of oral fluids in field validation studies has been less extensive than fecal samples, but preliminary data suggest that oral fluid testing can reliably detect PEDV and PDCoV in naturally infected herds, particularly when sampling occurs during the peak of clinical disease [9, 10].

Workflow for Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR Detection in Oral Fluids

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates the typical workflow for processing oral fluid samples for multiplex real-time RT-PCR detection of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV.

flowchart TD
    A[Oral Fluid Collection using Cotton Rope], > B[Sample Transport at 4°C]
    B, > C[Centrifugation at 3000 x g for 15 min]
    C, > D[Supernatant Collection]
    D, > E[Nucleic Acid Extraction using Commercial Kit]
    E, > F[One-Step Multiplex RT-PCR Setup]
    F, > G[Thermocycling: Reverse Transcription at 50°C for 30 min]
    G, > H[Initial Denaturation at 95°C for 10 min]
    H, > I[40 Cycles: 95°C for 15 sec, 60°C for 60 sec]
    I, > J[Fluorescence Data Acquisition]
    J, > K[Data Analysis: Ct Value Determination]
    K, > L{Interpretation}
    L, > M[Positive for PEDV, TGEV, or PDCoV]
    L, > N[Negative for All Targets]
    L, > O[Invalid: Internal Control Failure]

Advantages of Multiplexing for Outbreak Scenarios

Multiplex real-time RT-PCR offers several distinct advantages in the context of enteric coronavirus outbreaks [1, 3]. First, it reduces the time to diagnosis by allowing simultaneous detection of three pathogens in a single reaction, which is critical for implementing timely control measures such as quarantine, vaccination, or depopulation [2, 4]. Second, it reduces reagent and consumable costs by approximately two-thirds compared to running three separate singleplex assays, making it more accessible for routine surveillance in resource-limited settings [5, 6]. Third, it conserves valuable clinical samples, which is particularly important when sample volumes are limited, as is often the case with oral fluids from young piglets [10, 11].

The ability to detect co-infections is another major advantage [7, 6]. Co-infections with PEDV and PDCoV, or with all three viruses, have been associated with more severe clinical disease and higher mortality rates [1, 4]. Accurate identification of all pathogens present in a sample allows veterinarians to tailor treatment and biosecurity protocols accordingly [3, 9]. Furthermore, multiplex assays can be integrated into high-throughput laboratory workflows, enabling the processing of hundreds of samples per day during large-scale outbreak investigations [8, 10].

Limitations and Considerations

Despite their many advantages, multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays have certain limitations [2, 5]. Competition between primer sets for reagents, such as nucleotides and DNA polymerase, can lead to reduced amplification efficiency for some targets, particularly when one target is present at a much higher concentration than others [3, 7]. This phenomenon, known as competitive inhibition, can be mitigated through careful optimization of primer and probe concentrations and the use of balanced reaction conditions [4, 6].

Another limitation is the potential for reduced sensitivity compared to singleplex assays, although many optimized multiplex assays achieve comparable LoDs [2, 8]. The use of oral fluids introduces additional variability due to differences in sample quality, collection technique, and storage conditions [10, 11]. Standardized protocols for oral fluid collection, transport, and processing are essential to ensure consistent results across farms and laboratories [9, 10].

Finally, multiplex assays are inherently limited to the targets included in the panel [1, 5]. Emerging or novel enteric viruses, such as Porcine Rotavirus C or Porcine Astrovirus, will not be detected, and a negative result does not rule out infection with other pathogens [3, 6]. Therefore, multiplex assays should be used as part of a comprehensive diagnostic strategy that includes clinical history, necropsy, and histopathology when indicated [7, 4].

Conclusion

Multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays for the simultaneous detection of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV in oral fluids represent a significant advancement in swine enteric disease diagnostics [1, 4]. These assays offer high analytical sensitivity and specificity, rapid turnaround times, and cost-effective herd-level surveillance capabilities [2, 6]. The use of oral fluids as a non-invasive sample matrix facilitates large-scale screening without the logistical challenges associated with individual animal sampling [10, 11]. Field validation studies have demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance, with high positive coincidence rates compared to singleplex assays [4, 6]. Continued optimization and standardization of these assays will further enhance their utility in outbreak response and ongoing disease monitoring programs [3, 7].

References

[1] Ye C, Xu J, Fan S, et al. Establishment and application of a quadruple RT-qPCR method for simultaneous detection of porcine enteric coronaviruses. Front Vet Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41451340/

[2] Lazov CM, Papetti A, Belsham GJ, et al. Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR Assays for Detection and Differentiation of Porcine Enteric Coronaviruses. Pathogens. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37624000/

[3] Pan Z, Lu J, Wang N, et al. Development of a TaqMan-probe-based multiplex real-time PCR for the simultaneous detection of emerging and reemerging swine coronaviruses. Virulence. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32490723/

[4] Yan Li, Jiawei Niu, Xia Zhou, et al. Development of a multiplex qRT-PCR assay for the detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus and porcine Deltacoronavirus. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5ee180a78b836dcf50940339586bffad8cea4961

[5] Kim SH, Kim IJ, Pyo HM, et al. Multiplex real-time RT-PCR for the simultaneous detection and quantification of transmissible gastroenteritis virus and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus. J Virol Methods. 2007. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17697717/

[6] Jianpeng Chen, Rong-Hua Liu, Huai-Feng Liu, et al. Development of a Multiplex Quantitative PCR for Detecting Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus, Transmissible Gastroenteritis Virus, and Porcine Deltacoronavirus Simultaneously in China. Veterinary Sciences. 2023. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef39e26fb4815f693e7fa1284cb78adb2be7a0c4

[7] Wang W, Chen Z, Wang D, et al. Development and Application of a TaqMan-Based One-Step Quadruplex Reverse Transcription Real-Time PCR (RT-qPCR) for Differential Detection of Four Porcine Diarrhea Viruses. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41293454/

[8] Han X, Chen K, Qiu H, et al. Establishment of Multiplex Digital PCR Assay for Detection of Four Porcine Enteric Coronaviruses. Int J Mol Sci. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40943649/

[9] Zhang J, Tsai YL, Lee PY, et al. Evaluation of two singleplex reverse transcription-Insulated isothermal PCR tests and a duplex real-time RT-PCR test for the detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and porcine deltacoronavirus. J Virol Methods. 2016. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27060624/

[10] M. El-Tholoth, Huiwen Bai, M. Mauk, et al. A portable, 3D printed, microfluidic device for multiplexed, real time, molecular detection of the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, transmissible gastroenteritis virus, and porcine deltacoronavirus at the point of need. Lab on a Chip. 2021. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c7f7891a5816e5eb74d6215caec8d40fc4156178

[11] Yu Zhu, Lin Liang, Yakun Luo, et al. A sensitive duplex nanoparticle-assisted PCR assay for identifying porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus from clinical specimens. Virus genes. 2016. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f907c86f4a6d7721c5b31bd705888c7fb7cc1cb6 *** 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.