Abstract. We compared our recently reported reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assay for detection of epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV) in clinical samples with different virus isolation (VI) procedures. Thirty-six blood samples and 1 spleen sample from deer were assessed by the EHDV PCR assay and VI in baby hamster kidney (BHK)-21 cells and embryonated chicken eggs (ECE). The EHDV PCR assay detected EHDV RNA from 6 blood samples obtained from deer during 1988-1989 outbreaks of epizootic hemorrhagic disease and from the spleen and blood samples of a deer with clinical hemorrhagic disease in 1992. The 6 blood samples from the 1988-1989 outbreaks and the spleen sample from the 1992 case were VI positive on BHK-21 cell culture. The blood from the same deer with the PCR-and VI-positive spleen was VI negative in BHK-21 cells and ECE. All EHDV isolates were identified as EHDV serotype 2 by a plaque inhibition test. The results of this study indicate that the sensitivity of the previously described EHDV PCR assay is comparable to or greater than that of the VI method in BHK-21 cell culture or ECE. The EHDV PCR assays could provide a superior diagnostic alternative to the current cumbersome and time-consuming VI procedures.Epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus (EHDV) is an finitive diagnosis of EHDV infection presently requires arthropod-borne, double-stranded RNA virus of the isolation of the virus. Various laboratories have difgenus Orbivirus, family Reoviridae, 4,6 that causes fatal ferent methods for isolation of EHDV, including inhemorrhagic disease in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus travenous (i.v.) inoculation of embryonated chicken virginianus). 5,8,9,11 Other domestic and wild ruminants eggs (ECE) or isolation on cell lines. The VI technique may also be infected with the virus. 13,15 The possibility is laborious, expensive, and time consuming, and a of clinical disease in domestic and wild ruminants has final result requires 2-4 weeks. led to restrictions on the international movement of livestock and their germplasm if the animals are EHDV positive by serology or virus isolation (VI).
22Diagnosis of EHDV infection by traditional methods includes evaluation of clinical signs, pathologic changes, serology, and VI. Because clinical signs and pathologic changes caused by EHDV are indistinguishable from those produced by bluetongue virus (BLU), an orbivirus related to EHDV, confirmation of EHDV infection under field conditions by these methods is unreliable.14,19 Serology may provide a good indication of EHDV infection if there is a 4-fold increase in the antibody titer in samples taken 2 weeks apart. However, the difficulty in obtaining paired serum samples from field-infected animals makes a definitive diagnosis of EHDV infection by serology impractical. De-