4.4 Article

Development and evaluation of a sensitive and quantitative assay for hirame rhabdovirus based on quantitative RT-PCR

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 169, 期 2, 页码 391-396

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2010.08.011

关键词

Hirame rhabdovirus; Quantitative RT-PCR; TaqMan probe; Diagnostic assay

资金

  1. China's General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) [2009IK002, 2007IK267]
  2. State High-Tech Development Plan of the People's Republic of China [2006AA100306]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present work was to develop a quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assay using a TaqMan probe to detect and quantify hirame rhabdovirus (HRV). The results demonstrated that the assay had a detection limit of 100 copies of RNA per reaction and a log-linear range up to 10(8) copies of HRV RNA. Regression analysis demonstrated a significant correlation with an R-2 value of 0.9963 and a slope of -3.18 between the mean C-t values and HRV cRNA. This assay was 100 times more sensitive than the conventional one-step RT-PCR assay. The qRT-PCR assay was found to be highly reproducible with intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation of 0.37-1.72% and 1.37-3.79%, respectively. The primers and TaqMan probe were specific for HRV and did not react with either the spring viraemia of carp virus (SVCV), infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), marine birnavirus (MABV), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV), or viral nervous necrosis virus (VNNV). This assay was evaluated using 40 fish samples, indicating that such method offers considerable advantages over the classical virus isolation method currently used for HRV surveillance. In conclusion, the developed qRT-PCR assay was a reliable, specific and sensitive tool for the quantitative diagnosis of HRV in fish samples. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据