Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 199

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of rapid and simple techniques for the enrichment of viruses prior to metagenomic virus discovery

Open access
Hall, Richard J., Wang, Jing, Todd, Angela K., Bissielo, Ange B., Yen, Seiha, Strydom, Hugo, Moore, Nicole E., Ren, Xiaoyun, Huang, Q. Sue, Carter, Philip E., Peacey, Matthew·2014·Journal of Virological Methods

Abstract

The discovery of new or divergent viruses using metagenomics and high-throughput sequencing has become more commonplace. The preparation of a sample is known to have an effect on the representation of virus sequences within the metagenomic dataset yet comparatively little attention has been given to this. Physical enrichment techniques are often applied to samples to increase the number of viral sequences and therefore enhance the probability of detection. With the exception of virus ecology studies, there is a paucity of information available to researchers on the type of sample preparation required for a viral metagenomic study that seeks to identify an aetiological virus in an animal or human diagnostic sample. A review of published virus discovery studies revealed the most commonly used enrichment methods, that were usually quick and simple to implement, namely low-speed centrifugation, filtration, nuclease-treatment (or combinations of these) which have been routinely used but often without justification. These were applied to a simple and well-characterised artificial sample composed of bacterial and human cells, as well as DNA (adenovirus) and RNA viruses (influenza A and human enterovirus), being either non-enveloped capsid or enveloped viruses. The effect of the enrichment method was assessed by both quantitative real-time PCR and metagenomic analysis that incorporated an amplification step. Reductions in the absolute quantities of bacteria and human cells were observed for each method as determined by qPCR, but the relative abundance of viral sequences in the metagenomic dataset remained largely unchanged. A 3-step method of centrifugation, filtration and nuclease-treatment showed the greatest increase in the proportion of viral sequences. This study provides a starting point for the selection of a purification method in future virus discovery studies, and highlights the need for more data to validate the effect of enrichment methods on different sample types, amplification, bioinformatics approaches and sequencing platforms. This study also highlights the potential risks that may attend selection of a virus enrichment method without any consideration for the sample type being investigated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.08.035

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 199

Metadata

Authors
Hall, R. J., Wang, J., Todd, A. K., Bissielo, A. B., Yen, S., Strydom, H., Moore, N. E., Ren, X., Huang, Q. S., Carter, P. E., & Peacey, M.
Venue
Journal of Virological Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
195
Pages
194-204
ISSN
0166-0934 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969236063
Cited by
199
References
0
FWCI
15.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of rapid and simple techniques for the enrichment of viruses prior to metagenomic virus discovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.08.035
The paper
Hall, R. J., Wang, J., Todd, A. K., Bissielo, A. B., Yen, S., Strydom, H., Moore, N. E., Ren, X., Huang, Q. S., Carter, P. E., & Peacey, M. (2014). Evaluation of rapid and simple techniques for the enrichment of viruses prior to metagenomic virus discovery. Journal of Virological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2013.08.035

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.