3.8 Article

Evaluation of inapparent nosocomial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in Vietnam by use of highly specific recombinant truncated nucleocapsid protein-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.12.7.848-854.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a recently emerged human disease associated with pneumonia. Inapparent infection with SARS coronavirus (CoV) is not well characterized. To develop a safe, simple, and reliable screening method for SARS diagnosis and epidemiological study, two recombinant SARS-CoV nucleocapsid proteins (N' protein and N Delta(121) protein) were expressed in Excherichia coli, purified by affinity chromatography, and used as antigens for indirect, immunoglobulin G enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Serum samples collected from healthy volunteers and SARS patients in Vietnam were used to evaluate the newly developed methods. The N' protein-based ELISA showed a highly nonspecific reaction. The N Delta(121) protein-based ELISA, with a nonspecific reaction drastically reduced compared to that of the nearly-whole-length N' protein-based ELISA, resulted in higher rates of positive reactions, higher titers. and earlier detection than the SARS-CoV-infected cell lysate-based ELISA. These results indicate that our newly developed SARS-CoV N Delta(121) protein-based ELISA is not only safe but also a more specific and more sensitive method to diagnose SARS-CoV infection and hence a useful tool for large-scale epidemiological studies. To identify inapparent SARS-CoV infections, serum samples collected from health care workers (HCWs) in Vietnam were: screened by the N Delta(121) protein-based ELISA, and positive samples were confirmed by a virus neutralization test. Four out of 149 HCWs were identified to have inapparent SARS-CoV infection in Vietnam, indicating that subclinical SARS-CoV infection in Vietnam is rare but does exist.

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

3.8
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