ArticleVirology journal2022
Development of a quadruple PCR-based gene microarray for detection of vaccine and wild-type classical swine fever virus, African swine fever virus and atypical porcine pestivirus.
Article in Virology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indirect ELISA Based on ASFV Polymerase Three Subunits for Serological Monitoring of African Swine Fever Antibodies.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- A multiplex real-time PCR assay for identification porcine circovirus 2, atypical porcine pestivirus, and classical swine fever virus.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Establishment and Evaluation of a Multicolor Latex Microsphere-Based Lateral Flow Immunoassay for the Simultaneous Detection of Antibodies Against African and Classical Swine Fever Viruses.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Advancements in Modern Nucleic Acid-Based Multiplex Testing Methodologies for the Diagnosis of Swine Infectious Diseases.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClassical swine fever (CSF), African swine fever (ASF), and atypical porcine pestivirus (APPV) are acute, virulent, and contagious viral diseases currently hampering the pig industry in China, which result in mummification or stillbirths in piglets and mortality in pigs. Diagnostic assays for the differentiation of infection and vaccination of CSFV, in addition to the detection of ASFV and APPV, are urgently required for better prevention, control, and elimination of these viral diseases in China.
methodsA quadruple PCR-based gene microarray assay was developed in this study to simultaneously detect wild-type and vaccine CSFV strains, ASFV and APPV according to their conserved regions. Forty-two laboratory-confirmed samples, including positive samples of 10 other swine viral diseases, were tested using this assay to confirm its high specificity.
resultsThis assay's limit of detections (LODs) for the wild-type and vaccine CSFV were 6.98 and 6.92 copies/µL. LODs for ASFV and APPV were 2.56 × 10 and 1.80 × 10 copies/µL, respectively. When compared with standard RT-PCR or qPCR for CSFV (GB/T 26875-2018), ASFV (MARR issue No.172), or APPV (CN108611442A) using 219 clinical samples, the coincidence was 100%. The results showed that this assay with high sensitivity could specifically distinguish ASFV, APPV, and CSFV, including CSFV infection and immunization.
conclusionThis assay provides a practical, simple, economic, and reliable test for the rapid detection and accurate diagnosis of the three viruses and may have good prospects for application in an epidemiological investigation, prevention, and control and elimination of these three diseases.
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.