• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Comparison of Molecular Assays for the Rapid Detection and Simultaneous Subtype Differentiation of the Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Virus

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012 Aug;22(8):1165-9.
Comparison of Molecular Assays for the Rapid Detection and Simultaneous Subtype Differentiation of the Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Virus.
Lee MK, Kim HR.
Source

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul 156-755, Korea.
Abstract

In April 2009, the H1N1 pandemic influenza virus emerged as a novel influenza virus. The aim of this study was to compare the performances of several molecular assays, including conventional reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), two real-time reverse transcription (rRT)-PCRs, and two multiplex RTPCRs. A total of 381 clinical specimens were collected from patients (223 men and 158 women), and both the Seeplex RV7 assay and rRT-PCR were ordered on different specimens within one week after collection. The concordance rate for the two methods was 87% (332/381), and the discrepancy rate was 13% (49/381). The positive rates for the molecular assays studied included 93.1% for the multiplex Seeplex RV7 assay, 93.1% for conventional reverse transcription (cRT)-PCR, 89.7% for the multiplex Seeplex Flu ACE Subtyping assay, 82.8% for protocol B rRT-PCR, and 58.6% for protocol A rRT-PCR. Our results showed that the multiplex Seeplex assays and the cRT-PCR yielded higher detection rates than rRT-PCRs for detecting the influenza A (H1N1) virus. Although the multiplex Seeplex assays had the advantage of simultaneous detection of several viruses, they were time-consuming and troublesome. Our results show that, although rRTPCR had the advantage, the detection rates of the molecular assays varied depending upon the source of the influenza A (H1N1)v virus. Our findings also suggest that rRT-PCR sometimes detected virus in extremely low abundance and thus required validation of analytical performance and clinical correlation.

PMID:
22713996
[PubMed - in process]

Free full text

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22713996
 
Back
Top Bottom