4.4 Article

Detection of porcine enteroviruses by nRT-PCR: differentiation of CPE groups I-III with specific primer sets

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGICAL METHODS
卷 88, 期 2, 页码 205-218

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-0934(00)00189-0

关键词

porcine enteroviruses; CPE groups; specific primer sets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porcine enteroviruses (PEV) comprising at least 13 serotypes grouped into three species are described as causative agents of neurological disorders, fertility disorders, and dermal lesions of swine. Despite their well-documented acid stability, enteric infection route, and similarity of clinical symptoms, most of the porcine enterovirus (PEV) serotypes are set apart from the genus Enterovirus of the Picornaviridae. Hence, PCR procedures used commonly to detect enteroviruses are not applicable to epizootic relevant PEV serotypes. A nested RT-PCR protocol is described now suited to detect all known porcine enterovirus serotypes using three sets of primer pairs. These primer pairs were designed to amplify either highly conserved sequences of the 5'-nontranslated region (5'-NTR or the polymerase gene region of the relevant virus species. All 13 acknowledged serotypes of three PEV species and several field isolates of clinical specimens were detectable. The specificity of the PCR procedure is supported by the observation that RT-PCR-positive field isolates coincide with serological PEV classification. PEV PCR is more rapid and less laborious than the time-consuming virus isolation by tissue culture techniques over several passages and serotyping. Because other viruses such as classical swine fever virus, pseudorabies virus, porcine parvovirus, swine vesicular disease virus, and foot-and-mouth disease virus may cause diseases with similar clinical symptoms, PCR detection of all PEVs closes a diagnostic gap and offers the opportunity to use comprehensive PCR procedures for the diagnosis of all relevant viruses causing such symptoms. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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

4.4
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