4.2 Article

Detection and characterization of hepatitis B virus of anti-hepatitis B core antigen-reactive blood donors in Quebec with an in-house nucleic acid testing assay

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 47, 期 10, 页码 1794-1802

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2007.01394.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection can be detected in blood donations by many serologic markers. Since the introduction of routine anti-hepatitis B core antigen (HBc) donor screening at Hema-Quebec in April 2003, a large number of donors have been deferred on the basis of reactive anti-HBc test results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the anti-HBc-reactive donations and the detection of HBV DNA with an in-house nucleic acid testing (NAT) assay. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The in-house HBV NAT assay is a conventional polymerase chain reaction amplifying part of the viral S gene. From October 2004 to November 2005, a total of 1169 anti-HBc-reactive donations were tested with this in-house assay. The results were correlated with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-HBs markers. HBV DNA-positive samples were further investigated by DNA sequencing. RESULTS: All HBsAg-positive samples were detected by the NAT assay. Overall, 38 (3.25%) of anti-HBc-positive samples were found to be positive for the presence of HBV DNA. Of these 38, a total of 12 donations with a low level of HBV DNA were HBsAg-negative. The sequencing results clearly showed various genotypes and subtypes within a same genotype. CONCLUSION: The 3.25 percent HBV DNA positivity rate among the anti-HBc-reactive donations and more particularly the low level of HBV DNA observed in occult donations underline the importance of the use of a sensitive assay to detect HBV DNA in conjunction with other markers. The HBV genetic diversity found in our donor population reflects the province demographics, particularly in the Montreal area where most of the positive donors were from.

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

4.2
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