Comparison of nucleic acid-based detection of avian influenza H5N1 with virus isolation

Songhua Shan, Lung Sang Ko, Richard A. Collins, Zhongliang Wu, Jiahua Chen, Ka Yun Chan, Jun Xing, Lok Ting Lau, Albert Cheung Hoi Yu*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification with electrochemiluminescent detection (NASBA/ECL) of avian influenza virus was compared with viral culture in embryonated chicken eggs. Virus was isolated from blood or anal swabs of chickens artificially infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza A/Chicken/Hong Kong/1000/97 (H5N1). Viral nucleic acid was detected in blood samples by NASBA/ECL immediately prior to death, whilst nucleic acid extracted from anal swabs was detected from the day following artificial infection until death. Thus, blood and/or anal swabs are a suitable source of material for the detection of avian influenza in dead birds, but anal swabs are more suitable for detection of viral genetic material in live birds. Dilution of a known viral standard was used to determine the limit of sensitivity for both NASBA/ECL and egg culture detection methods. The NASBA/ECL method was equivalent in sensitivity to egg culture. The NASBA/ECL results agreed with egg culture data in 71/94 (75.5%) tissue samples obtained from artificially infected birds.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)377-383
Number of pages7
JournalBiochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
Volume302
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Mar 2003

Scopus Subject Areas

  • Biophysics
  • Biochemistry
  • Molecular Biology
  • Cell Biology

User-Defined Keywords

  • Electrochemiluminescence
  • H5N1
  • Highly pathogenic avian influenza
  • Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification
  • Virus isolation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of nucleic acid-based detection of avian influenza H5N1 with virus isolation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this