4.7 Article

Oligonucleotide array for simultaneous detection of respiratory viruses using a reverse-line blot hybridization assay

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 76, 期 2, 页码 256-264

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.20350

关键词

macroarray; multiplex RT-PCR; diagnostic methods

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interest in developing new diagnostic methods based on arrays of multiple probes to detect and type simultaneously a wide range of different infectious agents is increasing. This becomes a necessity in the case of infectious agents such as respiratory viruses that cause diseases with very similar signs and symptoms. Such tools will permit rapid and accurate diagnosis of different agents causing respiratory infection leading to the most adequate prevention and/or treatment measures. In this article a reverse-line blot hybridization (RLB) assay for the detection of a wide range of respiratory viruses is presented and evaluated for its usefulness in routine diagnosis. This assay employs an array of 18 oligonucleotide probes immobilized on a nylon membrane. Biotin-labeled PCR products obtained with two multiplex reverse transcription (RT)-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays described previously, which allow for the detection of fourteen different groups of respiratory viruses, were hybridized to the oligonucleotide array. Detection was performed using a chemiluminescent method. The standardization of the method showed that the RLB assay could be an alternative to the nested PCR assay for enhancing the sensitivity in the detection of the amplified products, avoiding the problem of cross-over contamination, increasing the specificity, and therefore simplifying the method. This is of main interest in laboratories with few facilities. The feasibility and accuracy of the RT-PCR-RLB assay for detecting respiratory viruses proves that such approach could be a first stage to develop a microarray assay for routine diagnosis of infectious diseases. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.7
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