Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29148297›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc2018

Detection of pseudorabies virus by duplex droplet digital PCR assay.

Meishen Ren, Hua Lin, Shijie Chen, Miao Yang, Wei An, Yin Wang, Changhua Xue, Yinjie Sun, Yubao Yan, Juan Hu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Meishen RenCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Hua LinCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Shijie ChenCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Miao YangCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Wei AnCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Yin WangCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Changhua XueCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Yinjie SunCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Yubao YanCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Juan HuCollege of Veterinary Medicine (Ren), Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Sichuan Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau · CNSichuan Agricultural University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aujeszky's disease, caused by pseudorabies virus (PRV), has damaged the economy of the Chinese swine industry. A large number of PRV gene-deleted vaccines have been constructed based on deletion of the glycoprotein E ( gE) gene combined with other virulence-related gene deletions, such as thymidine kinase ( TK), whereas PRV wild-type strains contain an intact gE gene. We developed a sensitive duplex droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay to rapidly detect PRV wild-type isolates and gE gene-deleted viral vaccines. We compared this assay with a TaqMan real-time PCR (qPCR) using the same primers and probes. Both assays exhibited good linearity and repeatability; however, ddPCR maintained linearity at extremely low concentrations, whereas qPCR did not. Based on positive results for both gE and gB, the detection limit of ddPCR was found to be 4.75 copies/µL in contrast of 76 copies/µL for qPCR, showing that ddPCR provided a 16-fold improvement in sensitivity. In addition, no nonspecific amplification was shown in specificity testing, and the PRV wild-type was distinguished from a gE-deleted strain. The ddPCR was more sensitive when analyzing clinical serum samples. Thus, ddPCR may become an appropriate detection platform for PRV.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA PrimersHerpesvirus 1, SuidLimit of DetectionPolymerase Chain ReactionPseudorabiesSwineSwine DiseasesDNA PrimersDuplex droplet digital PCR assaypseudorabies virusTaqMan real-time PCR

Identifiers

PMID29148297
PMCPMC6504158
OpenAlexW2769927321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.