English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

First-generation reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) gave false-negative results in a considerable fraction of patients. In the present study, we evaluated two second-generation, replicase (R) gene-based, real-time RT-PCR test kits--the RealArt HPA coronavirus LC kit (Artus, Hamburg, Germany) and the LightCycler SARS-CoV quantification kit (Roche, Penzberg, Germany)--and a real-time RT-PCR assay for the nucleocapsid (N) gene. Detecting the N-gene RNA might be advantageous due to its high abundance in cells. The kits achieved sensitivities of 70.8% (Artus) and 67.1% (Roche) in 66 specimens from patients with confirmed SARS (samples primarily from the upper and lower respiratory tract and stool). The sensitivity of the N-gene assay was 74.2%. The differences in all of the sensitivities were not statistically significant (P = 0.680 [analysis of variance]). Culture cells initially contained five times more N- than R-gene RNA, but the respective levels converged during 4 days of virus replication. In clinical samples the median concentrations of R- and N-gene RNA, respectively, were 1.2 x 10(6) and 2.8 x 10(6) copies/ml (sputum and endotracheal aspirates), 4.3 x 10(4) and 5.5 x 10(4) copies/ml (stool), and 5.5 x 10(2) and 5.2 x 10(2) copies/sample (throat swabs and saliva). Differences between the samples types were significant but not between the types of target RNA. All (n = 12) samples from the lower respiratory tract tested positive in all tests. In conclusion, the novel assays are more sensitive than the first-generation tests, but they still do not allow a comprehensive ruling out of SARS. Methods for the routine sampling of sputum without infection risk are needed to improve SARS RT-PCR.

journal of clinical microbiology

Evaluation of Advanced Reverse Transcription-PCR Assays and an Alternative PCR Target Region for Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Associated Coronavirus