Dataset Information

Laboratory detection methods for the human coronaviruses.

ABSTRACT: Coronaviruses are a group of envelop viruses which lead to diseases in birds and mammals as well as human. Seven coronaviruses have been discovered in humans that can cause mild to lethal respiratory tract infections. HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1 are the low-risk members of this family and the reason for some common colds. Besides, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and newly identified SARS-CoV-2, which is also known as 2019-nCoV, are the more dangerous viruses. Due to the rapid spread of this novel coronavirus and its related disease, COVID-19, a reliable, simple, fast, and low-cost detection method is necessary for patient diagnosis and tracking worldwide. Human coronaviruses detection methods were classified and presented in this article. The laboratory detection techniques include RT-PCR, RT-LAMP, electrochemical and optical biosensors for RNA detection, and whole virus or viral proteins detection assays.

SUBMITTER: Shabani E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7520381 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laboratory detection methods for the human coronaviruses.

Shabani Ehsan E Dowlatshahi Sayeh S Abdekhodaie Mohammad J MJ

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 20200928 2

Coronaviruses are a group of envelop viruses which lead to diseases in birds and mammals as well as human. Seven coronaviruses have been discovered in humans that can cause mild to lethal respiratory tract infections. HCoV-229E, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1 are the low-risk members of this family and the reason for some common colds. Besides, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and newly identified SARS-CoV-2, which is also known as 2019-nCoV, are the more dangerous viruses. Due to the rapid spread of th ...[more]

PMID: 32984911

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPsittacosis outbreak investigations require rapid identification of cases in order to trace possible sources and perform public health risk assessments. In recent outbreaks in the Netherlands, such investigations were hampered by the non-specificity of laboratory testing methods to identify human Chlamydia psittaci infections.MethodA systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases of literature published between 01 January, 1986 and 03 July, 2017 was done to find best practices of laboratory-testing methods used in psittacosis outbreaks of two or more human cases. Reference lists of included articles were hand searched to identify additional articles.ResultsThirty-seven eligible articles were identified, describing 44 human psittacosis outbreaks in 12 countries. Laboratory tests performed were PCR (with various targets), serologic tests (complement binding reactions, ELISA's, immunofluorescence tests and immuno-peroxidase tests) and culture, in various combinations. The literature provided no 'gold standard' laboratory testing strategy to identify recent human C. psittaci infections. In most psittacosis outbreaks, for a considerable number of cases (or tested individuals in an exposed cohort), C. psittaci infection could not be confirmed, nor excluded as causative pathogen. None of the testing strategies was found to be suitable for (nearly) full case finding.ConclusionPCR enables rapid identification of human psittacosis patients and helps source finding by genotyping but has the disadvantage that sensitivity is high only in the acute phase. In outbreak situations, there is often a time delay and therefore, there is a need for new serologic testing methods next to PCR, with good specificity and sensitivity. Moreover, serum is easier to collect than the preferred diagnostic materials for PCR. A serologic test that can reliably confirm infection status without the necessity of convalescent serum sampling would enhance case finding, source tracing, identification of risk factors and assessment of burden of disease in various settings.

Project description:Accurate and precise detection of anthropogenic impacts on stream ecosystems using macroinvertebrates as biological indicators depends on the use of appropriate field and laboratory methods. We assessed the responsiveness to anthropogenic disturbances of assemblage metrics and composition by comparing commonly employed alternative combinations of field sampling and individuals counting methods. Four datasets were derived by, in the field 1) conducting multihabitat sampling (MH) or 2) targeting samples in leaf packs (single-habitat sampling - SH) and, in the laboratory A) counting all individuals of the samples, or B) simulating subsampling of 300 individuals per sample. We collected our data from 39 headwater stream sites in a drainage basin located in the Brazilian Cerrado. We used a previously published quantitative integrated disturbance index (IDI), based on both local and catchment disturbance measurements, to characterize the intensity of anthropogenic alterations at each site. Family richness and % Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (% EPT) individuals obtained from each dataset were tested against the IDI through simple linear regressions, and the differences in assemblage composition between least- and most-disturbed sites was tested using Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA). When counting all individuals, differences in taxonomic richness and assemblage composition of macroinvertebrate assemblages between least- and most-disturbed sites were more pronounced in the MH than in the SH sampling method. Leaf packs seemed to concentrate high abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates in highly disturbed sites, acting as 'biodiversity hotbeds' in these situations, which likely reduced the response of the assemblages to the disturbance gradient when this substrate was targeted. However, MH sampling produced weaker results than SH when subsampling was performed. The % EPT individuals responded better to the disturbance gradient when SH was employed, and its efficiency was not affected by the subsampling procedure. We conclude that no single method was the best in all situations, and the efficiency of a sampling protocol depends on the combination of field and laboratory methods being used. Although the total count of individuals with multihabitat sampling obtained the best results for most of the evaluated variables, the decision of which procedures to use depends on the amount of time and resources available, on the variables of interest, on the availability of habitat types in the sites sampled, and on the other methods being employed in the sampling protocol.

Dataset Information

Laboratory detection methods for the human coronaviruses.

Publications

Laboratory detection methods for the human coronaviruses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets