Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLaiho, JE
dc.contributor.authorOikarinen, M
dc.contributor.authorRichardson, Sarah J.
dc.contributor.authorFrisk, G
dc.contributor.authorNyalwidhe, J
dc.contributor.authorBurch, TC
dc.contributor.authorMorris, MA
dc.contributor.authorOikarinen, S
dc.contributor.authorPugliese, A
dc.contributor.authorDotta, F
dc.contributor.authorCampbell-Thompson, M
dc.contributor.authorNadler, J
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Noel G.
dc.contributor.authorHyöty, H
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-11T14:07:19Z
dc.date.issued2016-02-02
dc.description.abstractBackground Enteroviruses (EVs) have been linked to the pathogenesis of several diseases and there is a collective need to develop improved methods for the detection of these viruses in tissue samples. Objectives This study evaluates the relative sensitivity of immunohistochemistry (IHC), proteomics, in situ hybridization (ISH) and RT-PCR to detect one common EV, Coxsackievirus B1 (CVB1), in acutely infected human A549 cells in vitro. Study design A549 cells were infected with CVB1 and diluted with uninfected A549 cells to produce a limited dilution series in which the proportion of infected cells ranged from 10−1 to 10−8. Analyses were carried out by several laboratories using IHC with different anti-EV antibodies, ISH with both ViewRNA and RNAScope systems, Liquid Chromatography Multiple Reaction Monitoring Mass Spectrometry (LC/MRM/MS/MS), and two modifications of RT-PCR. Results RT-PCR was the most sensitive method for EV detection yielding positive signals in the most diluted sample (10−8). LC/MRM/MS/MS detected viral peptides at dilutions as high as 10−7. The sensitivity of IHC depended on the antibody used, and the most sensitive antibody (Dako clone 5D8/1) detected virus proteins at a dilution of 10−6, while ISH detected the virus at dilutions of 10−4. Conclusions All methods were able to detect CVB1 in infected A549 cells. RT-PCR was most sensitive followed by LC/MRM/MS/MS and then IHC. The results from this in vitro survey suggest that all methods are suitable tools for EV detection but that their differential sensitivities need to be considered when interpreting the results from such studies.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipJDRF grants for the nPOD-Virus Groupen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDiabetes Research Foundation in Finlanden_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipSigrid Juselius Foundationen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipAcademy of Finlanden_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission (Persistent Virus Infection in Diabetes Network [PEVNET]en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDiabetes Research Wellness Foundation Non-Clinical Research Fellowshipen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipJDRF Career Development Awarden_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 77, pp. 21-28en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcv.2016.01.015
dc.identifier.grantnumberJDRF 25-2012-516en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberJDRF 25-2012-770en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber261441en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber5-CDA-2014-221-A-Nen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/19724
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonPublisher's policyen_GB
dc.rights© 2016. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_GB
dc.titleRelative sensitivity of immunohistochemistry, multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry, in situ hybridization and PCR to detect Coxsackievirus B1 in A549 cellsen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.identifier.issn1386-6532
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Clinical Virologyen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record