4.7 Article

Molecular Detection of a Novel Human Influenza (H1N1) of Pandemic Potential by Conventional and Real-Time Quantitative RT-PCR Assays

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 8, 页码 1555-1558

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.130229

关键词

-

资金

  1. Area of Excellence Scheme of the University Grants Committee Hong Kong Grant [AoE/M-12/06]
  2. Research Grant Council of Hong Kong [HKU 773408M]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Influenza A viruses are medically important viral pathogens that cause significant mortality and morbidity throughout the world. The recent emergence of a novel human influenza A virus (H1N1) poses a serious health threat. Molecular tests for rapid detection of this virus are urgently needed. METHODS: We developed a conventional I-step RT-PCR assay and a I-step quantitative real-time RT-PCR assay to detect the novel H1N1 virus, but not the seasonal H1N1 viruses. We also developed an additional real-time RTPCR that can discriminate the novel H1N1 from other swine and human H I subtype viruses. RESULTS: All of the assays had detection limits for the positive control in the range of 1.0 x 10(-4) to 2.0 x 10(-3) of the median tissue Culture infective dose. Assay specificities were high, and for the conventional and real-time assays, all negative control samples were negative, including 7 human seasonal H1N1 viruses, I human H2N2 virus, 2 human seasonal H3N2 viruses, 1 human H5N1 virus, 7 avian influenza viruses (HA subtypes 4,5,7, 8,9,and 10), and 48 nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) from patients with noninfluenza respiratory diseases; for the assay that discriminates the novel H1N1 from other swine and human H1 subtype viruses, all negative controls were also negative, including 20 control NPAs, 2 seasonal human H1N1 viruses, 2 seasonal human H3N2 viruses, and 2 human H5N1 viruses. CONCLUSIONS: These assays appear useful for the rapid diagnosis of cases with the novel H1N1 virus, thereby allowing better pandemic preparedness.

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