2009
DOI: 10.4081/958
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of Epstein Barr virus in formalin-fixed paraffin tissues by fluorescent direct in situ PCR

Abstract: Specific viral laboratory diagnosis of primary Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) infection is usually based on antibody-detection assays. However, molecular detection is also considered the reference standard assay for diagnosis of central nervous system infections and of most cases of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). One-step or nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has rapidly replaced immunological assays based on virus-specific Ig antibodies for the laboratory diagnosis of Herpesvirus infections, even if serologica… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(6 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this case, it was stated that the viral presence in spermatozoa pellet samples might be due to residual NSC or alternatively, to false positives due to non-specific hybridization of in situ PCR (Persico et al, 2006). Both explanations seem unlikely, as unequivocal sperm identification is guaranteed by its specific morphological features, and in situ PCR, when correctly performed along with positive and negative controls, is considered a powerful, highly reliable technique for the detection of viral DNA in human tissue sections and cells (Marziliano et al, 2005;Trincado et al, 2005;Comar et al, 2006;Nuovo, 2006;Tanji et al, 2006). HIV-1 DNA was revealed in 10 and 5 out of 12 subjects by in situ PCR hybridization and by nested PCR analysis, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, it was stated that the viral presence in spermatozoa pellet samples might be due to residual NSC or alternatively, to false positives due to non-specific hybridization of in situ PCR (Persico et al, 2006). Both explanations seem unlikely, as unequivocal sperm identification is guaranteed by its specific morphological features, and in situ PCR, when correctly performed along with positive and negative controls, is considered a powerful, highly reliable technique for the detection of viral DNA in human tissue sections and cells (Marziliano et al, 2005;Trincado et al, 2005;Comar et al, 2006;Nuovo, 2006;Tanji et al, 2006). HIV-1 DNA was revealed in 10 and 5 out of 12 subjects by in situ PCR hybridization and by nested PCR analysis, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For qRT-PCR [ 29 ], the total RNA of clinical or cell samples was reverse-transcribed with EasyScript cDNA Synthesis SuperMix, and qRT-PCR was performed with SYBR Premix Ex Taq™ II (TaKaRa, Japan), according to the manufacturer's protocol. Primer sequences are presented in Table 1 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%