4.6 Article

Analysis Comparison for Rapid Identification of Pathogenic Virus from Infected Tissue Samples

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12010196

关键词

tissue sample; infectious disease; forensic; virus; quantitative PCR; exhaustive gene amplification; next-generation sequencing; read; detection; identification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to find suitable methods for rapid identification of causative pathogens from infected tissue samples. By comparing RDV method with next-generation sequencing, it was found that MinION sequencing is currently the method of choice for rapid identification of causative viruses from infectious samples.
When examining infectious samples, rapid identification of the pathogenic agent is required for diagnosis and treatment or for investigating the cause of death. In our previous study, we applied exhaustive amplification using non-specific primers (the rapid determination system of viral genome sequences, the RDV method) to identify the causative virus via swab samples from a cat with a suspected viral infection. The purpose of the current study is to investigate suitable methods for the rapid identification of causative pathogens from infected tissue samples. First, the influenza virus was inoculated into mice to prepare infected tissue samples. RNA extracted from the mouse lung homogenates was transcribed into cDNA and then analyzed using the RDV method and next-generation sequencing, using MiSeq and MinION sequencers. The RDV method was unable to detect the influenza virus in the infected tissue samples. However, influenza virus reads were detected using next-generation sequencing. Comparing MiSeq and MinION, the time required for library and sequence preparation was shorter for MinION sequencing than for MiSeq sequencing. We conclude that when a causative virus needs to be rapidly identified from an infectious sample, MinION sequencing is currently the method of choice.

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