4.6 Article

Establishment of conventional and fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based real-time PCR assays for detection of pathogenic New World arenaviruses

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 229-235

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2004.07.011

关键词

New World arenavirus; viral hemorrhagic fever; molecular diagnostics; real-time RT-PCR; fluorescence resonance energy transfer probe; light-cycler

类别

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI-53649] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Five of the known arenaviruses cause viral hemorrhagic fever in humans and are classified as biosafety level 4 pathogens. Four of the viruses, namely Junin, Guanarito, Machupo, and Sabia, belong to clade B of New World arenaviruses that also comprises the nonpathogenic viruses Tacaribe, Cupixi, and Amapari. Objectives: To establish real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assays for Junin and Guanarito virus based on fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) probes, and a universal RT-PCR assay for all known clade B viruses with conventional read-out. Results: Conserved sequences in the nucleoprotein gene were chosen as target sites for primers and FRET probes. A common set of primers was designed for all three assays. The assays were based on one-step RT-PCR reagents and were optimised with respect to analytical sensitivity using synthetic RNA templates. The real-time PCR assays detected about 0.5 and 5 TCID50 of cell culture-derived Junin and Guanarito virus, respectively. The universal clade B PCR amplified cell culture-derived RNA of Junin, Guanarito, Machupo, and Sabia virus (5-500TCID(50) per reaction), as well as RNA of Tacaribe, Cupixi, and Amapari virus. Conclusions: The PCR assays may be used as complementary diagnostic tests for pathogenic New World arenaviruses. The universal PCR assay could also be suitable for the detection of novel clade B arenaviruses in patients as well as in animal reservoirs. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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