MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1128/jcm.00289-07

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007

Comparison of four methods using throat swabs to confirm rubella virus infection.

Zhu Zhen, Xu Wenbo, Abernathy Emily S, Chen Min-Hsin, Zheng Qi, Wang Tongzhan, Zhang Zhenying, Li Congyong, Wang Changyin, He Weikuan, Zhou Shujie, Icenogle Joseph

Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

Laboratory tests are essential for confirming sporadic cases and outbreaks of rubella. Detection of rubella virus is often necessary to confirm rubella cases and to identify specimens to be used to characterize wild-type rubella viruses. The sensitivities of four methods for detecting rubella virus infection using throat swabs, which had been collected in Henan and Anhui provinces in China, were evaluated. The methods used were reverse transcription (RT)-PCR followed by Southern hybridization using RNA extracted directly from clinical specimens, virus growth in tissue culture followed by virus detection by RT-PCR, low-background immunofluorescence in infected tissue culture cells using monoclonal antibodies to the structural proteins of rubella virus, and a replicon-based method of detecting infectious virus. Among these four methods, direct RT-PCR followed by hybridization was the most sensitive method; the replicon-based method was the least difficult to perform.

Для цитирования: Zhu Zhen, Xu Wenbo, Abernathy Emily S, Chen Min-Hsin, Zheng Qi, Wang Tongzhan, Zhang Zhenying, Li Congyong, Wang Changyin, He Weikuan, Zhou Shujie, Icenogle Joseph. Comparison of four methods using throat swabs to confirm rubella virus infection.. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2007. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00289-07.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.