Real-Time Reverse Transcription PCR for Differential Diagnosis of West Nile Virus and Usutu Virus in Avian Samples

Introduction

West Nile virus (WNV) and Usutu virus (USUV) are mosquito-borne flaviviruses within the Japanese encephalitis serocomplex. Both viruses circulate in enzootic cycles involving ornithophilic Culex mosquitoes and avian reservoir hosts [1, 2, 3]. WNV has been associated with epizootics causing neurologic disease in birds, horses, and humans, whereas USUV was historically considered less pathogenic but has been linked to mass die‑offs in certain bird species, notably Eurasian blackbirds (Turdus merula) and captive populations in zoological gardens [4, 5, 6]. Serological surveys frequently detect antibodies against both viruses in wild birds, but enzyme‑linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and virus neutralization tests (VNTs) often suffer from cross‑reactivity due to the close antigenic relationship among flaviviruses [7, 8]. This cross‑reactivity complicates differential diagnosis and surveillance efforts [9, 10]. To overcome these limitations, molecular methods such as real‑time reverse transcription PCR (rRT‑PCR) are essential for the specific detection and differentiation of WNV and USUV RNA in avian clinical samples [11, 12, 13].

The present article provides an exhaustive review of the design, analytical validation, and field application of multiplex rRT‑PCR assays developed for the differential diagnosis of WNV and USUV in avian tissues, swabs, and blood samples. Emphasis is placed on primer and probe design, analytical sensitivity (limit of detection), specificity testing, and performance on field samples collected from wild and captive birds. The importance of accurate molecular differentiation is underscored by the overlapping ecology of these viruses and the increasing co‑circulation reported across Europe [14, 15, 16, 17, 18].

Molecular Basis of Assay Design

Genomic Targets

Both WNV and USUV possess a single‑stranded positive‑sense RNA genome of approximately 11 kb that encodes three structural proteins (capsid, pre‑membrane/membrane, envelope) and seven non‑structural proteins (NS1, NS2A, NS2B, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5). Most published rRT‑PCR assays target conserved regions within the NS5 gene or the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) because these sequences exhibit sufficient conservation within each virus species while allowing inter‑species discrimination [11, 12, 13]. The NS5 gene encodes the RNA‑dependent RNA polymerase and is highly conserved among flaviviruses, yet specific single‑nucleotide polymorphisms differentiate WNV and USUV lineages. Some multiplex designs also target the envelope (E) gene region to enhance strain‑level discrimination [19].

Primer and Probe Design

For differential diagnosis, a multiplex rRT‑PCR typically includes three oligonucleotide sets: one pair of primers and a hydrolysis probe specific for WNV, another set specific for USUV, and often an internal control (e.g., host β‑actin or glyceraldehyde‑3‑phosphate dehydrogenase) to monitor RNA extraction efficiency and amplification inhibitors [12, 20]. The probes are labeled with different fluorophores (e.g., FAM for WNV, HEX/VIC for USUV, Cy5 for the internal control) to permit simultaneous detection in a single reaction. Primer and probe sequences are designed using sequence alignments of multiple isolates from different geographic regions and lineages. For WNV, the design must accommodate both lineage 1 (including clade 1a and 1b) and lineage 2; for USUV, primers must detect Africa 2, Africa 3, and Europe lineages [14, 21, 17, 22]. In silico specificity is evaluated against databases of other flaviviruses such as St. Louis encephalitis virus, Japanese encephalitis virus, and dengue virus to avoid cross‑amplification [11, 8].

Reaction Chemistry and Cycling Conditions

A typical one‑step rRT‑PCR uses a commercial master mix containing reverse transcriptase (e.g., Moloney murine leukemia virus reverse transcriptase) and a thermostable DNA polymerase (e.g., Taq polymerase) combined with deoxyribonucleotide triphosphates, magnesium chloride, and buffer components. The cycling protocol commonly involves a reverse transcription step at 45–50°C for 10–30 minutes, followed by initial denaturation at 95°C for 2–5 minutes, and 40–45 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 5–15 seconds and annealing/extension at 55–60°C for 30–60 seconds. Fluorescence acquisition is performed at the end of each annealing/extension step. The threshold cycle (Ct) values are determined using automated analysis software, with a cutoff typically set at Ct ≤ 38–40 for positive samples [13, 23, 24].

Analytical Validation

Limit of Detection

Analytical sensitivity is assessed using in vitro transcribed RNA standards or viral stocks of known titer. The limit of detection (LoD) is defined as the lowest concentration of target RNA that yields a positive signal in at least 95% of replicate reactions. For WNV and USUV multiplex rRT‑PCRs, reported LoDs range from 10 to 100 RNA copies per reaction [12, 13]. Some assays achieve LoDs below 10 copies per reaction when using optimized primer‑probe sets and high‑sensitivity master mixes [11]. The LoD may vary slightly between lineages; for example, USUV Africa 3 lineage detection is sometimes less sensitive due to nucleotide mismatches in the primer binding regions [17]. Assay developers routinely test a panel of serial dilutions prepared in a background of negative avian RNA (e.g., from specific‑pathogen‑free chicken embryos) to mimic field conditions.

Analytical Specificity

Specificity is evaluated using a panel of related flaviviruses (e.g., St. Louis encephalitis virus, Japanese encephalitis virus, tick‑borne encephalitis virus) and other avian viruses (e.g., avian influenza virus, Newcastle disease virus, avian paramyxoviruses). No cross‑amplification should be observed against these heterologous targets [11, 12, 13]. Additionally, the assay must not produce false‑positive signals from uninfected avian tissues or from samples containing common commensal microorganisms. The inclusion of no‑template controls and negative extraction controls in each run ensures contamination monitoring.

Inclusivity and Exclusivity

Inclusivity is tested using a diverse set of WNV and USUV isolates representing different geographic origins and lineages. For WNV, isolates from lineages 1 and 2, as well as the Kunjin subtype (lineage 1b), should be detected with comparable efficiency [1, 3]. For USUV, isolates from the Europe, Africa 2, and Africa 3 lineages should be recognized [14, 21, 17, 22]. Exclusivity is confirmed by the absence of amplification from the heterologous flavivirus at high RNA concentrations. A typical exclusivity panel includes dengue virus serotypes 1–4, yellow fever virus, Zika virus, and chikungunya virus (where applicable) [11, 12].

Internal Control and Inhibition Assessment

An internal control (IC) RNA (e.g., in vitro transcribed β‑actin or exogenous synthetic RNA) is spiked into each sample lysis buffer or added to the master mix. The IC probe is labeled with a third fluorophore. Amplification failure of the IC in the presence of a negative target signal indicates sample inhibition or extraction failure, prompting re‑extraction or dilution [20]. The IC Ct value should remain consistent across runs (typically within 3 cycles) to ensure uniform efficiency.

Field Validation on Avian Samples

Sample Types and Preprocessing

Field validation studies have used a variety of avian sample types: brain tissue, heart, kidney, spleen, liver, whole blood, oral swabs, cloacal swabs, and feather pulp [4, 5, 18, 6, 25]. Tissues are homogenized in phosphate‑buffered saline or cell culture medium, followed by centrifugation. RNA is extracted using silica‑membrane column‑based kits or magnetic bead‑based methods. The extracted RNA is quantified spectrophotometrically; a minimum of 50–100 ng total RNA is typically used per rRT‑PCR reaction.

Diagnostic Sensitivity and Specificity

Diagnostic sensitivity is assessed by testing samples from birds with confirmed infection (either by virus isolation, conventional RT‑PCR, or sequencing). Diagnostic specificity is determined by testing samples from WNV‑ and USUV‑negative populations (e.g., from regions with no known circulation or from specific‑pathogen‑free flocks). Reported diagnostic sensitivities for multiplex rRT‑PCR assays in avian samples exceed 95% for both viruses, with specificities approaching 100% [13, 24, 18]. Discordant results are resolved by sequencing the amplicon or by using a secondary, independent molecular test (e.g., pan‑flavivirus RT‑PCR with subsequent sequencing).

Comparison with Serology

Serological differentiation of WNV and USUV is challenging due to cross‑reactivity in ELISAs and even in VNTs, especially in birds that have been exposed to both viruses [7, 8]. Molecular detection via rRT‑PCR provides direct evidence of current infection and viral RNA presence, whereas serology indicates past exposure. In surveillance programs that rely on sentinel birds, rRT‑PCR can detect viral RNA days before seroconversion [26]. Therefore, a combined approach of rRT‑PCR and serology is recommended for comprehensive monitoring [2, 10]. The limitations of serology underscore the need for high‑specificity molecular assays in acute infection diagnosis.

Workflow for Differential Diagnosis

The following Mermaid flow diagram outlines the recommended laboratory workflow for differential diagnosis of WNV and USUV in avian samples using multiplex rRT‑PCR.

flowchart TD
    A[Avian sample: tissue, swab, blood], > B[RNA extraction]
    B, > C{RNA quality OK?}
    C, >|Yes| D[Multiplex rRT-PCR: WNV FAM, USUV HEX, IC Cy5]
    C, >|No| E[Re-extract or discard]
    D, > F[Amplification and fluorescence acquisition]
    F, > G{WNV Ct ≤ 38?}
    G, >|Yes| H[Report WNV positive]
    G, >|No| I{USUV Ct ≤ 38?}
    I, >|Yes| J[Report USUV positive]
    I, >|No| K{IC Ct ≤ 35?}
    K, >|Yes| L[Report negative]
    K, >|No| M[Inhibition suspected; re-extract 1:10 dilution]
    M, > D

Importance of Differential Diagnosis

Distinguishing WNV from USUV infection is critical for epidemiological tracking, risk assessment, and implementation of control measures. Co‑circulation of both viruses has been documented in many European countries, including Germany [3, 6], the Netherlands [2, 26], Italy [16, 18], Spain [14, 22], Poland [17], Croatia [15], Denmark [21, 1], and the Czech Republic [4]. The two viruses often share the same mosquito vectors and avian hosts [24, 27, 28]. Without molecular differentiation, outbreaks caused by USUV may be misattributed to WNV, leading to unnecessary public health interventions or misdirection of veterinary resources. Additionally, prior infection with USUV has been shown to protect geese from severe WNV disease, a finding that has implications for vaccine and surveillance strategies [29]. Multiplex rRT‑PCR allows rapid, high‑throughput screening of large numbers of samples, which is essential for wildlife monitoring programs and outbreak investigations [20, 25]. The technique also supports genomic surveillance efforts; rRT‑PCR‑positive samples can be reflexed to amplicon‑based or metagenomic sequencing to characterize emerging lineages [19, 30].

Limitations and Considerations

Despite its advantages, multiplex rRT‑PCR has limitations. The assay may fail to detect divergent or novel lineages if primer binding sites are mutated. Continuous monitoring of circulating strains and periodic redesign of oligonucleotides are necessary [17, 22]. Furthermore, rRT‑PCR does not differentiate between infectious and non‑infectious viral RNA; positive results do not necessarily indicate viable virus. Virus isolation in cell culture (e.g., Vero cells) or inoculation of suckling mice remains the gold standard for infectivity assessment [5]. However, for routine surveillance and early detection, rRT‑PCR is the preferred tool due to its speed, sensitivity, and quantitative capability [11, 12, 13]. Finally, its reliance on expensive reagents and equipment limits its use in resource‑limited settings; alternative technologies such as loop‑mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) or CRISPR‑based assays are being explored for point‑of‑care applications.

Conclusion

Real‑time reverse transcription PCR is the cornerstone of molecular diagnosis for WNV and USUV in avian samples. Carefully designed multiplex assays targeting conserved yet discriminative genomic regions, validated with comprehensive analytical and field testing, provide a robust method for differential diagnosis. The increasing co‑circulation of these flaviviruses across Europe and Africa necessitates the continued use of such assays in both passive and active surveillance programs [31, 32, 33, 34]. Integrating rRT‑PCR results with serological and ecological data enhances our understanding of virus transmission dynamics and supports the One Health approach to arbovirus monitoring [14, 2]. For detailed information on the clinical presentation of WNV in horses, readers are directed to the existing reference article on West Nile Virus in Horses. A comparative discussion of serological versus molecular approaches can be found in Serology vs PCR for Animal Virus Diagnosis.

References

[1] Olesen AS, Polacek C, Bøtner A, et al. A decade of West Nile virus surveillance in the host and vector populations of Denmark, 2011 to 2023. Euro Surveill. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40970304/

[2] Münger E, Atama NC, van Irsel J, et al. One Health approach uncovers emergence and dynamics of Usutu and West Nile viruses in the Netherlands. Nat Commun. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40849294/

[3] Schopf F, Sadeghi B, Bergmann F, et al. Circulation of West Nile virus and Usutu virus in birds in Germany, 2021 and 2022. Infect Dis (Lond). 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39520671/

[4] Kamiš J, Grymová V, Suvorov P, et al. First report of Usutu virus fatal infections in Chilean tinamous (Nothoprocta perdicaria), brahminy starlings (Sturnia pagodarum), and multiple other bird species in zoological gardens and wildlife in the Czech Republic. One Health Outlook. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41484679/

[5] Agliani G, Visser I, Marshall EM, et al. Experimental Usutu virus infection in Eurasian blackbirds (Turdus merula). Npj Viruses. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40542200/

[6] Bergmann F, Schmoock‑Wellhausen M, Fast C, et al. Longitudinal Study of the Occurrence of Usutu Virus and West Nile Virus Infections in Birds in a Zoological Garden in Northern Germany. Pathogens. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37375443/

[7] Schwarzer A, Ziegler U, Fertey J, et al. Serological differentiation of West Nile, Usutu, and tick‑borne encephalitis virus antibodies in birds and horses using mutant E protein ELISAs. Sci Rep. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40770485/

[8] Hossain MS, Vogt MB, Hawks SA, et al. Cross‑protection against St. Louis encephalitis virus and Usutu virus by West Nile virus convalescent plasma. Virology. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40273513/

[9] Atama NC, Martin BB, van Horssen MG, et al. West Nile Virus and Usutu Virus Neutralizing Antibodies Found in Dutch Rodent Species. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40944489/

[10] de Bellegarde de Saint Lary C, Kasbergen LMR, Bruijning‑Verhagen PCJL, et al. Assessing West Nile virus (WNV) and Usutu virus (USUV) exposure in bird ringers in the Netherlands: a high‑risk group for WNV and USUV infection? One Health. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37363259/

[11] Xu Z, Peng Y, Yang M, et al. Simultaneous detection of Zika, chikungunya, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile, and Japanese encephalitis viruses by a two‑tube multiplex real‑time RT‑PCR assay. J Med Virol. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35146775/

[12] Mishra N, Ng J, Rakeman JL, et al. One‑step pentaplex real‑time polymerase chain reaction assay for detection of Zika, dengue, chikungunya, West Nile viruses and a human housekeeping gene. J Clin Virol. 2019. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31557664/

[13] García‑Ruíz D, Martínez‑Guzmán MA, Cárdenas‑Vargas A, et al. Detection of dengue, West Nile virus, rickettsiosis and leptospirosis by a new real‑time PCR strategy. Springerplus. 2016. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27350908/

[14] Leka A, Gardela J, Obón E, et al. Circulation and overwintering of Usutu virus lineages in north‑eastern Spain: A one health perspective (2021‑2025). One Health. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42004747/

[15] Vilibić‑Čavlek T, Barbić L, Klobučar A, et al. Re‑Emergence of Usutu Virus and Spreading of West Nile Virus Neuroinvasive Infections During the 2024 Transmission Season in Croatia. Viruses. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40573437/

[16] Romiti F, Scicluna MT, Censi F, et al. Is it time to consider West Nile and Usutu viruses endemic in central Italy? Virus Res. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40081763/

[17] Dziadek K, Niczyporuk JS, Styś‑Fijoł N, et al. Usutu virus continues to spread across Europe: first report of multiple molecular detections of the USUV Africa 2 and Africa 3 lineages in free‑living and captive birds in Poland, July‑November 2023. Vet Res. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39962596/

[18] Musto C, Tamba M, Calzolari M, et al. Detection of West Nile and Usutu Virus RNA in Autumn Season in Wild Avian Hosts in Northern Italy. Viruses. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37632113/

[19] Ndione MHD, Diagne MM, Mencattelli G, et al. An amplicon‑based sequencing approach for Usutu virus characterization. Virol J. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39044231/

[20] Atama NC, Chestakova IV, de Bruin E, et al. Evaluation of the use of alternative sample types for mosquito‑borne flavivirus surveillance: Using Usutu virus as a model. One Health. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36532676/

[21] Gelskov LV, Johnston CM, Hammer ASV, et al. First detection of Usutu virus in wild birds in Denmark, 2024. Sci Rep. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41530390/

[22] Bravo‑Barriga D, Ferraguti M, Magallanes S, et al. Identification of Usutu Virus Africa 3 Lineage in a Survey of Mosquitoes and Birds from Urban Areas of Western Spain. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40303749/

[23] Beaubaton R, Revel J, Pigeyre L, et al. Tracking the urban spread of Usutu virus in southern France: Detection across biological and environmental matrices. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40892936/

[24] Freick M, Vogt I, Schröter S, et al. Investigations on the occurrence of West Nile virus, Usutu virus and Sindbis virus RNA in avian louse flies (Diptera: Hippoboscidae) collected in Germany (2016‑2022). Parasit Vectors. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40452045/

[25] Folly AJ, Sewgobind S, Hernández‑Triana LM, et al. Evidence for overwintering and autochthonous transmission of Usutu virus to wild birds following its redetection in the United Kingdom. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36217722/

[26] Streng K, Atama N, Chandler F, et al. Sentinel chicken surveillance reveals previously undetected circulation of West Nile virus in the Netherlands. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39295515/

[27] Šikutová S, Mendel J, Mravcová K, et al. Detection of Usutu virus in a house martin bug Oeciacus hirundinis (Hemiptera: Cimicidae): implications for virus overwintering in a temperate zone. Parasitol Res. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39162844/

[28] Tinto B, Kaboré DPA, Kagoné TS, et al. Screening of Circulation of Usutu and West Nile Viruses: A One Health Approach in Humans, Domestic Animals and Mosquitoes in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Microorganisms. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36296292/

[29] Reemtsma H, Holicki CM, Fast C, et al. A Prior Usutu Virus Infection Can Protect Geese from Severe West Nile Disease. Pathogens. 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37513806/

[30] Holicki CM, Bergmann F, Stoek F, et al. Expedited retrieval of high‑quality Usutu virus genomes via Nanopore sequencing with and without target enrichment. Front Microbiol. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36439823/

[31] Papa A, Tsioka K, Pappa S, et al. First Usutu Virus Infection in an Asymptomatic Blood Donor in Greece. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42188867/

[32] Boubidi SC, Mousson L, Kernif T, et al. First evidence of circulation of multiple arboviruses in Algeria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39509466/

[33] Coroian M, Silaghi C, Tews BA, et al. Serological Survey of Mosquito‑Borne Arboviruses in Wild Birds from Important Migratory Hotspots in Romania. Pathogens. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36365021/

[34] Fynmore N, Lühken R, Kliemke K, et al. Honey‑baited FTA cards in box gravid traps for the assessment of Usutu virus circulation in mosquito populations in Germany. Acta Trop. 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35963312/ *** 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.

[35] Žlabravec Z, Kvapil P, Slavec B, et al. Herpesvirus and Subsequent Usutu Virus Infection in a Great Grey Owl (Strix nebulosa) at the Ljubljana Zoo, Slovenia. Animals (Basel). 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38672348/