IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlvet/v49y2004i7id5703-vetmed.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantification of the effectiveness of laboratory diagnostics of rabies using classical and molecular-genetic methods

Author

Listed:
  • R. Franka

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • S. Svrcek

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • M. Madar

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • M. Kolesarova

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • A. Ondrejkova

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • R. Ondrejka

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • Z. Benisek

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • J. Suli

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

  • S. Vilcek

    (, S. S 1, M. M 1, M. K 2, A. O 3, R. O 3, Z. B)

Abstract

In comparative experiments the diagnostic effectiveness of four methods of laboratory diagnostics of rabies - the mouse intracerebral inoculation test (MICIT, MIT), the rabies tissue culture infection test (RTCIT), the rapid rabies enzyme immune diagnosis test (RREID) and a molecular-genetic method, the nested reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (nRT-PCR) - was quantified by the titration of serial dilutions of brain viral suspensions. The threshold value of the tests, i.e., the highest dilution of a specimen, which the method used is able to detect as a positive one, was determined. Further advantages and disadvantages of the tested methods were compared as well. Experimental optimization of procedures for RNA extraction was carried out and the optimum primer for RNA transcription to cDNA was selected. The RREID method was carried out in two variants: detection of the rabies antigen in a clarified (centrifugated) as well as in a non-clarified (noncentrifugated) brain suspension. In the experiments three autochthonous street isolates of rabies virus (in the form of primary isolates) were used; they had been isolated from naturally infected red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and a lynx (Lynx lynx). The results of comparative experiments revealed a relative correlation of the diagnostic effectiveness of standard methods (MICIT and RTCIT), with standard MICIT being the more sensitive one, RTCIT however having several other advantages (among others the speed of performance) and thus being preferred. For quantitative comparison of diagnostic effectiveness two other methods (RREID and nRT-PCR) were examined in that street isolates of rabies virus, which revealed the highest titer after titration by MICIT and RTCIT. The sensitivity of the RREID method proved to be rather low. If used with noncentrifugated brain suspensions this method may yield nonspecific reactions. If compared particularly with RREID the nRT-PCR is characterized by a considerably higher diagnostic effectiveness. The sensitivity of nRT-PCR is not affected by preliminary clarification of the brain suspension. The reverse primer N12 seems to be more suitable for transcription of the extracted RNA to cDNA than random hexamers.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Franka & S. Svrcek & M. Madar & M. Kolesarova & A. Ondrejkova & R. Ondrejka & Z. Benisek & J. Suli & S. Vilcek, 2004. "Quantification of the effectiveness of laboratory diagnostics of rabies using classical and molecular-genetic methods," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 49(7), pages 259-267.
  • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:49:y:2004:i:7:id:5703-vetmed
    DOI: 10.17221/5703-VETMED
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/5703-VETMED.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/5703-VETMED.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/5703-VETMED?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:49:y:2004:i:7:id:5703-vetmed. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.