ArticleMolecular biology reports2024
Interfering factors in the diagnosis of Senecavirus A.
Article in Molecular biology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSenecavirus A (SV-A) is an RNA virus that belongs to the genus Senecavirus within the family Picornaviridae. This study aimed to analyze factors that can influence the molecular diagnosis of Senecavirus A, such as oligonucleotides, RNA extraction methods, and RT-qPCR kits.
methodsSamples from suspected cases of vesicular disease in Brazilian pigs were analyzed for foot-and-mouth disease, swine vesicular disease, and vesicular stomatitis. All tested negative for these diseases but positive for SV-A. RT-qPCR tests were used, comparing different reagent kits and RNA extraction methods. Sensitivity and repeatability were evaluated, demonstrating efficacy in detecting SV-A in clinical samples.
resultsIn RNA extraction, significant reduction in Cq values was observed with initial dilutions, particularly with larger supernatant volumes. Trizol and Maxwell showed greater sensitivity in automated equipment protocols, though results varied in tissue tests. RT-qPCR kit comparison revealed differences in amplification using viral RNA but minimal differences with plasmid DNA. Sensitivity among methods was comparable, with slight variations in non-amplified samples. Repeatability tests showed consistent results among RT-qPCRs, demonstrating similarity between methods despite minor discrepancies in Cq values.
conclusionsTrizol, silica columns, and semi-automated extraction were compared, as well as different RT-qPCR kits. The study found significant variations that could impact the final diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38904698What 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.