Comparison of R-mix Virus Culture and Multiplex Reverse Transcriptase-PCR for the Rapid Detection of Respiratory Viruses.
10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.3.289
- Author:
Gayoung LIM
1
;
Tae Sung PARK
;
Jin Tae SUH
;
Hee Joo LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kyung Hee University, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. leehejo@khmc.or.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; English Abstract
- Keywords:
R-mix virus culture;
Respiratory virus detection;
Multiplex respiratory RT-PCR
- MeSH:
Child;
Child, Preschool;
Female;
Humans;
Infant;
Infant, Newborn;
Male;
Middle Aged;
RNA, Viral/analysis;
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic;
Respiratory Tract Infections/*virology;
Retrospective Studies;
*Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction;
*Virus Cultivation;
Virus Diseases/*diagnosis;
Viruses/genetics/*isolation &purification
- From:The Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine
2010;30(3):289-294
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Respiratory viral infections can become epidemic due to high contagiosity. Since there was no rapid diagnostic method for complete diagnosis in the past, diagnosis was solely made on the basis of clinical symptoms or the time of infection. With recent developments in rapid diagnostic methods like multiplex reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR, R-mix virus culture, etc., early detection and effective treatment of respiratory viral infections is possible. Herein, we compared the efficiency of multiplex RT-PCR and the R-mix virus culture for the rapid detection of respiratory viruses. METHODS: We used 96 nasopharyngeal swab specimens for culturing respiratory viruses using R-mix (Diagnostics Hybrids Inc., USA). Afterwards, multiplex RT-PCR was performed using specimens stored at -70degrees C. RESULTS: R-mix virus culture yielded positive results in 34 cases (35.4%) and multiplex RT-PCR in 73 cases (76.0%). Both methods yielded identical results in 51 cases (29 positive cases and 22 negative cases). Among 45 cases that showed different results, 40 showed negative results in R-mix virus culture and positive results in multiplex RT-PCR, and 1 showed positive result in R-mix virus culture and negative result in multiplex RT-PCR. Different viruses were detected in the remaining 4 cases by both the methods. CONCLUSIONS: Multiplex RT-PCR provided faster results and had higher detection rates than R-mix virus culture. Further, unlike R-mix virus culture, multiplex RT-PCR can be used to identify new respiratory viruses. Therefore, multiplex RT-PCR is more useful than R-mix virus culture in the diagnosis of respiratory virus infection.
