These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Detection of respiratory syncytial virus A and B and parainfluenzavirus 3 sequences in respiratory tracts of infants by a single PCR with primers targeted to the L-polymerase gene and differential hybridization.
    Author: Eugene-Ruellan G, Freymuth F, Bahloul C, Badrane H, Vabret A, Tordo N.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 1998 Mar; 36(3):796-801. PubMed ID: 9508315.
    Abstract:
    A reverse transcription-PCR and hybridization-enzyme immunoassay (RT-PCR-EIA) has been developed to identify the major agents of bronchiolitis in infants: respiratory syncytial viruses A and B (RSVA and RSVB) and parainfluenzavirus 3 (PIV3). Two primer sets (P1-P2 and P1-P3) were selected in a conserved region of the polymerase L gene. In infected cell cultures, this method detected RSVA (n = 14), RSVB (n = 13), and PIV3 (n = 13), with the exclusion of PIV1 (n = 4), PIV2 (n = 3), measles virus (n = 6), mumps virus (n = 4), influenza A virus (n = 11), and influenza B virus (n = 4). The differentiation of the amplicons by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) showed a PvuII site for PIV3 strains and an AvaII site for RSV strains, with RSVA distinguished from RSVB by BglII. The hybridization-EIA, using three internal probes specific for each virus, correlated with the immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and RFLP results. Clinical aspirates from 261 infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis were tested by IFA, viral isolation technique (VIT), and RT-PCR-EIA. RT-PCR-EIA detected RSV sequences in 103 samples (39.4%), and IFA-VIT detected RSV sequences in 109 cases (41.7%). A few samples (2.6%) were IFA-VIT positive but PCR negative, and one sample was RT-PCR-EIA positive only. RT-PCR-EIA detected PIV3 sequences in 14 of the 15 IFA-VIT-positive isolates. The two methods showed very good correlation (96.9%), but RT-PCR-EIA was clearly more efficient in typing, leaving 5% non-A, non-B isolates, while IFA failed to resolve 23% of the isolates. The two methods contradicted each other for <5% of the isolates.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]