ArticlePloS one2015
Transfection of RNA from organ samples of infected animals represents a highly sensitive method for virus detection and recovery of classical swine fever virus.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetically distinct pestiviruses pave the way to improved classical swine fever marker vaccine candidates based on the chimeric pestivirus concept.Emerging microbes & infections · 2020Article
- Presence of atypical porcine pestivirus (APPV) genomes in newborn piglets correlates with congenital tremor.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- The control of classical swine fever in wild boar.Frontiers in microbiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Translation and replication of positive stranded RNA viruses are directly initiated in the cellular cytoplasm after uncoating of the viral genome. Accordingly, infectious virus can be generated by transfection of RNA genomes into susceptible cells. In the present study, efficiency of conventional virus isolation after inoculation of cells with infectious sample material was compared to virus recovery after transfection of total RNA derived from organ samples of pigs infected with Classical swine fever virus (CSFV). Compared to the conventional method of virus isolation applied in three different porcine cell lines used in routine diagnosis of CSF, RNA transfection showed a similar efficiency for virus rescue. For two samples, recovery of infectious virus was only possible by RNA transfection, but not by the classical approach of virus isolation. Therefore, RNA transfection represents a valuable alternative to conventional virus isolation in particular when virus isolation is not possible, sample material is not suitable for virus isolation or when infectious material is not available. To estimate the potential risk of RNA prepared from sample material for infection of pigs, five domestic pigs were oronasally inoculated with RNA that was tested positive for virus rescue after RNA transfection. This exposure did not result in viral infection or clinical disease of the animals. In consequence, shipment of CSFV RNA can be regarded as a safe alternative to transportation of infectious virus and thereby facilitates the exchange of virus isolates among authorized laboratories with appropriate containment facilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.