Multiplex Real-Time RT-PCR for Simultaneous Detection of Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus, Transmissible Gastroenteritis Virus, and Porcine Deltacoronavirus in Swine

Introduction

Porcine enteric coronaviruses (PECoVs) constitute a major cause of acute viral gastroenteritis in neonatal and weaned piglets, resulting in substantial economic losses to the global swine industry [1, 2]. The three principal PECoVs are Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDV), Transmissible Gastroenteritis Virus (TGEV), and Porcine Deltacoronavirus (PDCoV) [3, 4]. Each virus belongs to distinct coronavirus genera: Alphacoronavirus (PEDV and TGEV) and Deltacoronavirus (PDCoV) [5, 6]. Despite differences in taxonomy and antigenic properties, all three agents produce nearly indistinguishable clinical signs, including profuse watery diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, and high mortality in suckling piglets [7, 8]. Co-infections with two or all three viruses are frequently reported in field samples, further complicating clinical diagnosis [9, 10, 11].

Traditional diagnostic approaches such as virus isolation, electron microscopy, and conventional single-target RT-PCR are time-consuming, labor-intensive, or unable to differentiate among these pathogens simultaneously [3, 12]. Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) with fluorescent probes, particularly TaqMan-based real-time RT-PCR, has become the gold standard for sensitive and specific detection of RNA viruses [4, 5, 13]. The development of multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays that can simultaneously detect and differentiate PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV from a single clinical sample is urgently needed for rapid differential diagnosis, outbreak surveillance, and implementation of timely control measures [1, 3, 14].

This article reviews the design, optimization, validation, and clinical application of multiplex real-time RT-PCR assays targeting conserved genomic regions of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV, with emphasis on primer and probe selection, multiplex reaction optimization, analytical performance characteristics, and field utility. Crosslinks to relevant virus-specific articles on this portal are provided where appropriate. For detailed virological background, readers are referred to the dedicated entries for Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus, Transmissible Gastroenteritis Virus, and Porcine Deltacoronavirus.

Assay Design Principles

Target Gene Selection

Selection of conserved genomic regions is critical for ensuring broad detection of circulating viral strains. For PEDV, the membrane (M) protein gene and the nucleocapsid (N) protein gene are frequently targeted due to their high sequence conservation among variants [12, 13]. The M gene encodes a type III transmembrane glycoprotein involved in viral assembly and is relatively stable across PEDV genotypes [12]. For TGEV, the spike (S) protein gene, particularly the S1 domain, is commonly used because it contains highly conserved epitopes while also allowing differentiation from closely related coronaviruses such as porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) [5, 13]. The S gene of TGEV shares substantial homology with PRCV, but careful primer placement in regions unique to TGEV can achieve specificity [5]. For PDCoV, the M gene and the N gene are both employed in published multiplex formats; the N gene is highly expressed during infection and shows low variability among PDCoV isolates [3, 12, 13].

Several published assays select the following targets: PEDV M gene, TGEV S gene, and PDCoV M gene [12]; or PEDV M gene, TGEV S gene, and PDCoV N gene [13]. A quadruplex assay incorporating an internal control (e.g., porcine beta-actin) has also been reported to monitor sample quality and extraction efficiency [1, 13]. Table 1 summarizes the target genes used in representative multiplex assays.

Table 1. Target genes selected for multiplex real-time RT-PCR detection of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV.

Primer and Probe Design

Primers and hydrolysis probes (TaqMan) are designed to anneal to the conserved regions identified above. Amplicon lengths are typically kept short (70–150 base pairs) to maximize amplification efficiency and robust performance in degraded RNA samples [5, 15]. Probes are labeled with distinct fluorophores at the 5' end and a quencher (e.g., BHQ1 or BHQ2) at the 3' end to enable multiplex detection in a single channel. Common fluorophore assignments include FAM for PEDV, HEX or VIC for TGEV, and Cy5 or ROX for PDCoV [3, 4, 12, 13]. Multiple assays incorporate a fourth fluorophore for the internal control or for a fourth pathogen in quadruplex formats [1, 2, 6].

Primer and probe sets must be evaluated in silico for potential cross-reactivity with other swine viruses, including porcine rotavirus, porcine circovirus type 2, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), swine influenza A virus, and swine enteric bacteria [1, 3, 8]. Only those sets showing negligible off-target binding are advanced to wet-laboratory testing. All published multiplex assays report no cross-reactivity with common non-target porcine pathogens [3, 4, 12, 13].

Multiplex Optimization

Reaction Components and Thermal Cycling

Multiplex real-time RT-PCR requires careful optimization of primer and probe concentrations, MgCl2 concentration, dNTP amounts, reverse transcriptase and DNA polymerase enzyme blends, and reaction buffer pH [5, 12]. Imbalanced primer concentrations can lead to preferential amplification of one target over others, reducing sensitivity for less abundant targets [5]. Typical optimization strategies involve titration of each primer pair (typically 200–900 nM final concentration) and probes (100–300 nM) in a chequerboard matrix to achieve uniform Ct values across targets when template concentrations are equal [3, 12, 13].

One-step RT-PCR protocols that combine reverse transcription and PCR in a single closed tube are preferred to minimize handling steps and contamination risk [4, 5]. A typical thermal cycling profile consists of a reverse transcription step at 42–50°C for 5–30 minutes, initial denaturation at 95°C for 2–5 minutes, followed by 40–45 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 5–15 seconds and annealing/extension at 55–60°C for 30–60 seconds [1, 3, 12, 13]. The annealing temperature is often optimized by gradient PCR to ensure simultaneous efficient hybridization of all primer-probe sets [13].

Multiplex Interference and Compensation

Fluorescent channel cross-talk and competition for reaction components are common challenges in multiplex assays. To minimize spectral overlap, fluorophore emission spectra should be well separated (e.g., FAM, HEX, Cy5). Color compensation algorithms built into modern real-time PCR instruments can resolve residual spillover [3]. Competitive inhibition can be reduced by balancing primer concentrations and adjusting MgCl2 levels, which influences polymerase activity and primer annealing stringency [5].

In the assay by Kim et al. [5], inclusion of a minor groove binder (MGB) probe improved discrimination for TGEV. The use of locked nucleic acid (LNA) residues in probes has been described to increase melting temperature (Tm) and specificity, although none of the provided references employ LNA directly [15]. A nanoparticle-assisted PCR (nanoPCR) approach enhanced sensitivity ten-fold relative to conventional PCR for PEDV and TGEV detection [15]. However, nanoPCR is not a real-time method; it is an endpoint PCR with gold nanoparticles to improve amplicon detection.

A critical factor for clinical robustness is the inclusion of an exogenous internal positive control (e.g., in vitro transcribed RNA or a commercial IC) to detect RT-PCR inhibition [13]. The beta-actin endogenous control used by Chen et al. [13] provides not only a sample quality check but also a relative normalization reference.

Analytical Performance Characteristics

Sensitivity (Limit of Detection)

The limit of detection (LoD) for each target virus is determined using serial ten-fold dilutions of quantified in vitro transcribed RNA or viral genomic RNA. LoD is often defined as the lowest concentration that yields a positive signal in at least 95% of replicate reactions [3, 12]. Published LoDs for multiplex RT-qPCR targeting PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV range from 1 to 10 copies per microliter of template [4, 12, 13]. For example, Li et al. [12] reported an LoD of 2.95 × 10^0 copies per microliter for all three viruses. Chen et al. [13] achieved 10 copies per reaction (10 copies/µL). Pan et al. [4] reported LoDs of 10 copies per reaction for PEDV and PDCoV and 25 copies per reaction for TGEV. In a duplex assay for PEDV and TGEV using nanoPCR, the LoD was 7.6 × 10^1 and 8.5 × 10^1 copies/µL, respectively [15].

Assays using digital PCR (dPCR) offer absolute quantification without standard curves. Han et al. [8] established a multiplex digital PCR assay for four porcine enteric coronaviruses (including PEDV, TGEV, PDCoV, and porcine enteric alphacoronavirus) with LoD down to 2 copies per reaction. However, dPCR equipment is less widely available than real-time PCR platforms.

Specificity and Cross-Reactivity

Specificity is evaluated by testing the multiplex assay against a panel of related and unrelated swine pathogens. Common pathogens tested include porcine rotavirus groups A, B, and C, porcine circovirus 2, PRRSV, swine influenza A virus, classical swine fever virus, pseudorabies virus, and Escherichia coli [1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13]. All cited multiplex assays report no cross-reactivity with these agents. Cross-reactivity between TGEV and PRCV is a particular concern because PRCV is a spike gene deletion mutant of TGEV; primers and probes targeting the deleted region in the S gene can differentiate TGEV from PRCV [5]. The assay by Kim et al. [5] specifically included a TGEV MGB probe that did not amplify PRCV.

Reproducibility

Intra-assay and inter-assay variability are assessed by testing replicates of positive samples at different RNA concentrations. Coefficients of variation (CV) for Ct values are typically below 5% for intra-assay runs and below 10% for inter-assay runs [12]. Chen et al. [13] reported intra- and inter-assay CVs below 3% for all three targets.

Clinical Application and Validation

Sample Types and Processing

Fecal swabs, intestinal contents, and tissue homogenates (small intestine) are the most common clinical specimens for PECoV detection [1, 3, 12, 13, 14]. For effective multiplex RT-qPCR, RNA extraction must yield high-quality, inhibitor-free RNA. Commercial silica membrane-based spin columns or magnetic bead-based automated extraction systems are used. The extracted RNA is eluted in nuclease-free water and should be immediately tested or stored at −80°C [5].

Field Prevalence and Co-Infection Rates

Clinical validation studies using multiplex RT-qPCR have revealed substantial co-circulation of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV in swine populations across China, Europe, and North America [1, 3, 4, 12, 13]. Table 2 summarizes detection rates from representative studies.

Table 2. Detection rates of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV in clinical samples using multiplex real-time RT-qPCR.

These data highlight that PEDV is the most prevalent, followed by PDCoV, while TGEV is detected at lower frequencies in recent years [1, 3, 12, 13]. Notably, co-infections, particularly PEDV+PDCoV, are common. The high rate of triple infection (nearly 12%) reported by Chen et al. [13] underscores the need for multiplex detection.

Diagnostic Sensitivity and Specificity Compared to Singleplex

Parallel testing of clinical samples with multiplex RT-qPCR and singleplex RT-qPCR (standard monoplex assays) shows high concordance. Li et al. [12] observed a 100% positive coincidence rate between multiplex and singleplex results. Pan et al. [4] reported sensitivity and specificity exceeding 98% for each target in the multiplex format. These data confirm that multiplexing does not compromise diagnostic accuracy.

Alternative and Emerging Detection Technologies

Beyond real-time RT-PCR, several alternative molecular platforms have been described for detection of these viruses. A portable 3D-printed microfluidic device using reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) achieved detection within 30 minutes with LoD of 10 genomic copies per reaction for PEDV and PDCoV and 100 copies for TGEV [14]. Colloidal gold immunochromatographic strips (GICA) provide rapid on-site preliminary screening but have lower sensitivity (approximately 10^4 TCID50/mL) [11]. A high-throughput photo-electrochromic ratiometric sensing chip was developed for simultaneous detection [9]. Multiplex digital PCR offers absolute quantification and may be particularly useful for quantifying low-level co-infections [8]. These methods are complementary to RT-qPCR; they may serve in field-deployable or resource-limited settings.

Workflow Diagram

flowchart TD
    A[Clinical Sample: Fecal swab, intestinal tissue], > B[RNA Extraction]
    B, > C[Multiplex One-Step RT-qPCR]
    subgraph RT-qPCR
        C1[Reverse Transcription 42-50°C, 15-30 min]
        C2[Denaturation 95°C, 2-5 min]
        C3[40-45 cycles: 95°C 10 s, 55-60°C 30 s]
        C4[Fluorescence acquisition each cycle]
    end
    C, > D[Data Analysis: Ct values for each fluorophore]
    D, > E{Interpretation}
    E, > F[PEDV positive (FAM)]
    E, > G[TGEV positive (HEX/VIC)]
    E, > H[PDCoV positive (Cy5)]
    E, > I[Negative for all targets / IC failure]
    F, > J[Report differential diagnosis]
    G, > J
    H, > J

Limitations and Future Directions

While multiplex real-time RT-PCR is highly effective, several limitations remain. Strain diversity, particularly for PEDV, may lead to primer-template mismatches and reduced sensitivity [3]. Regular monitoring of circulating strains and periodic updating of primer/probe sequences are necessary. The inability to discriminate between viable and non-viable virus (detection of RNA only) is an inherent limitation of nucleic acid-based tests. Additionally, multiplex assays can be less sensitive than singleplex assays for very low copy numbers due to competitive inhibition, though careful optimization largely overcomes this [5].

Future developments may include integration with high-throughput microfluidic platforms or coupling with CRISPR-Cas systems for multiplexed point-of-care detection, as already demonstrated for African swine fever virus (see CRISPR Cas12a Based Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid Point of Care Detection of African Swine Fever Virus in Porcine Blood and Oral Fluids and CRISPR-Cas12a-Based Biosensor for Rapid Detection of African Swine Fever Virus). The expansion of multiplex panels to include additional porcine enteric pathogens such as porcine rotavirus, Lawsonia intracellularis, or Brachyspira species is already underway [1, 2, 6, 7].

Conclusion

Multiplex real-time RT-PCR using TaqMan probes provides a robust, sensitive, and specific tool for the simultaneous detection and differentiation of PEDV, TGEV, and PDCoV in swine. Careful selection of conserved genomic targets, rigorous primer and probe validation, and systematic optimization of reaction conditions are essential for successful multiplexing. Clinical validation studies across multiple geographic regions demonstrate high concordance with singleplex assays and reveal the frequent occurrence of co-infections. This molecular diagnostic approach is indispensable for timely differential diagnosis, epidemiological surveillance, and the effective management of porcine enteric coronavirus outbreaks.

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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41451340/

[2] Xin Z, Li S, Lu X, et al. Development and Clinical Application of a Molecular Assay for Four Common Porcine Enteroviruses. Vet Sci. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39057989/

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

[4] 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32490723/

[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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17697717/

[6] 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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41293454/

[7] Shuai J, Song S, Han X, et al. Multiplex detection and application of MALDI-TOF NAMS for porcine diarrheal pathogens. Microbiol Spectr. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41143427/

[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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40943649/

[9] Zou Y, Liu L, Zuo Y, et al. A high-throughput photo-electrochromic ratiometric sensing chip for swine enteric coronaviruses detection. Biosens Bioelectron. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40934796/

[10] Yang Y, Xiao X, Ren M, et al. Development of a triplex RT-qPCR assay for rapid and accurate detection of porcine rotavirus, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, and porcine deltacoronavirus. Vet Res Commun. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41954829/

[11] Zhou J, Wu W, Wang D, et al. Development of a colloidal gold immunochromatographic strip for the simultaneous detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus and transmissible gastroenteritis virus. Front Microbiol. 2024. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d15179ec4ea0f528f5a13a12bbe6f4a1369b4a83

[12] Li Y, Niu J, Zhou X, et al. Development of a multiplex qRT-PCR assay for the detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus and porcine Deltacoronavirus. Front Vet Sci. 2023. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5ee180a78b836dcf50940339586bffad8cea4961

[13] Chen J, Liu RH, Liu HF, et al. Development of a Multiplex Quantitative PCR for Detecting Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus, Transmissible Gastroenteritis Virus, and Porcine Deltacoronavirus Simultaneously in China. Vet Sci. 2023. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ef39e26fb4815f693e7fa1284cb78adb2be7a0c4

[14] El-Tholoth M, Bai H, Mauk M, 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 Chip. 2021. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c7f7891a5816e5eb74d6215caec8d40fc4156178

[15] Zhu Y, Liang L, Luo Y, 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. 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.