4.6 Article

Quantification of Reverse Transcriptase Activity by Real-Time PCR as a Fast and Accurate Method for Titration of HIV, Lenti- and Retroviral Vectors

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050859

关键词

-

资金

  1. SBO CellCoVir grant from the agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT) Flanders, Belgium
  2. HIV-STOP Interuniversity Attraction Poles program of Belgian Science Policy
  3. European Union [Health-2007-2.3.2-1]
  4. Ghent University [BOF11/GOA/013]
  5. Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantification of retroviruses in cell culture supernatants and other biological preparations is required in a diverse spectrum of laboratories and applications. Methods based on antigen detection, such as p24 for HIV, or on genome detection are virus specific and sometimes suffer from a limited dynamic range of detection. In contrast, measurement of reverse transcriptase (RT) activity is a generic method which can be adapted for higher sensitivity using real-time PCR quantification (qPCR-based product-enhanced RT (PERT) assay). We present an evaluation of a modified SYBR Green I-based PERT assay (SG-PERT), using commercially available reagents such as MS2 RNA and ready-to-use qPCR mixes. This assay has a dynamic range of 7 logs, a sensitivity of 10 nU HIV-1 RT and outperforms p24 ELISA for HIV titer determination by lower inter-run variation, lower cost and higher linear range. The SG-PERT values correlate with transducing and infectious units in HIV-based viral vector and replication-competent HIV-1 preparations respectively. This assay can furthermore quantify Moloney Murine Leukemia Virus-derived vectors and can be performed on different instruments, such as Roche Lightcycler (R) 480 and Applied Biosystems ABI 7300. We consider this test to be an accurate, fast and relatively cheap method for retroviral quantification that is easily implemented for use in routine and research laboratories.

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

4.6
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