4.7 Article

Comparison of real-time PCR assays with fluorescent-antibody assays for diagnosis of respiratory virus infections in children

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 7, Pages 2382-2388

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00216-06

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA018029, 5 P01 CA018029-30] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conventional fluorescent-antibody (FA) methods were compared to real-time PCR assays for detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza virus type A (FluA), parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, and 3 (PIV1, PIV2, and PIV3), human metapneumovirus (MPV), and adenovirus (AdV) in 1,138 specimens from children with respiratory illnesses collected over a 1-year period. At least one virus was detected in 436 (38.3%) specimens by FA and in 608 (53.4%) specimens by PCR (P < 0.001). Specimen quality was inadequate for FA in 52 (4.6%) specimens; 13 of these (25%) were positive by PCR. In contrast, 18 (1.6%) specimens could not be analyzed by PCR; 1 of these was positive by FA. The number of specimens positive only by PCR among specimens positive by PCR and/or FA was 18 (7.0%) of 257 for RSV, 18 (13.4%) of 134 for FluA, 25 (64.1%) of 39 for PIV1, 8 (88.9%) of 9 for PIV2, 17 (30.1%) of 55 for PIV3, and 101 (76.5%) of 132 for AdV. MPV was detected in 6.6% of all specimens and in 9.5% of the 702 specimens negative by FA. The mean number of virus copies per milliliter in specimens positive by both PCR and FA was significantly higher, at 6.7 x 10(7), than that in specimens positive only by PCR, at 4.1 X 10(4) (p < 0.001). The PCR assays were significantly more sensitive than FA assays for detecting respiratory viruses, especially parainfluenza virus and adenovirus. Use of real-time PCR to identify viral respiratory pathogens in children will lead to improved diagnosis of respiratory illness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available