Bu öğeden alıntı yapmak, öğeye bağlanmak için bu tanımlayıcıyı kullanınız:
http://hdl.handle.net/11452/30696
Tüm üstveri kaydı
Dublin Core Alanı | Değer | Dil |
---|---|---|
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-01-30T06:00:33Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-01-30T06:00:33Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016-07-20 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Göktuna, P. T. ve Yeşilbağ, K. (2017). ''Evaluation of diagnostic methods for the detection of pestiviruses in clinical samples''. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 41(2), 175-179. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1300-0128 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-1602-8 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/veterinary/vol41/iss2/5/ | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11452/30696 | - |
dc.description.abstract | There are several commonly used diagnostic methods to detect pestiviruses for routine diagnostic purposes. In the present study, we aimed to compare virus isolation-indirect immunoperoxidase monolayer assay (VI-IIPMA), antigen capture ELISA (ACE), and RT-PCR for the detection of pestiviruses in clinical samples. Out of 246 samples tested (11 serum, 119 swab, 116 tissue), 28 samples (11.39%) were positive and 218 (88.61%) were negative using the VI-IIPMA method. Using ACE, 70 samples (28.46%) were positive and 176 (71.54%) were negative. Finally, using RT-PCR analysis, we detected 19 (7.72%) positive and 227 (92.28%) negative samples. Inconsistencies were observed among results of the three methods: 8 samples were positive using VI-IIPMA but negative using ACE and RT-PCR. In addition, 4 samples that were found to be negative by VI-IIPMA were found to be positive by ACE and RT-PCR. Five samples were positive by ACE and VI-IIPMA. However, 46 samples were found to be positive only by ACE. These results show that the number of positive results detected by ACE is higher than that by VI-IIPMA and RT-PCR. Although ACE may prove advantageous for diagnosing pestiviruses, using a second method in combination with ACE will improve the validity of the results. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | TÜBİTAK | tr_TR |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en_US |
dc.rights | Atıf Gayri Ticari Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası | tr_TR |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | * |
dc.subject | Veterinary sciences | en_US |
dc.subject | ELISA | en_US |
dc.subject | Immunoperoxidase monolayer assay | en_US |
dc.subject | Pestiviruses | en_US |
dc.subject | RT-PCR | en_US |
dc.subject | Virus isolation | en_US |
dc.subject | Viral diarrhea virus | en_US |
dc.subject | Laboratory diagnosis | en_US |
dc.subject | BVDV | en_US |
dc.title | Evaluation of diagnostic methods for the detection of pestiviruses in clinical samples | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.wos | 000399874200005 | tr_TR |
dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-85019638040 | tr_TR |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi | tr_TR |
dc.contributor.department | Uludağ Üniversitesi/Veteriner Fakültesi/Viroloji Anabilim Dalı. | tr_TR |
dc.relation.bap | KUAP (V)-2015/57 | tr_TR |
dc.contributor.orcid | 0000-0002-7468-0155 | tr_TR |
dc.identifier.startpage | 175 | tr_TR |
dc.identifier.endpage | 179 | tr_TR |
dc.identifier.volume | 41 | tr_TR |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | tr_TR |
dc.relation.journal | Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences | en_US |
dc.contributor.buuauthor | Göktuna, Pelin Tuncer | - |
dc.contributor.buuauthor | Yeşilbağ, Kadir | - |
dc.contributor.researcherid | ABE-7662-2020 | tr_TR |
dc.contributor.researcherid | O-7981-2015 | tr_TR |
dc.indexed.trdizin | TrDizin | tr_TR |
dc.subject.wos | Veterinary sciences | tr_TR |
dc.indexed.wos | SCIE | en_US |
dc.indexed.scopus | Scopus | en_US |
dc.wos.quartile | Q3 | en_US |
dc.contributor.scopusid | 54787022200 | tr_TR |
dc.contributor.scopusid | 6602912127 | tr_TR |
dc.subject.scopus | Bovine Viral Diarrhea Viruses; Pestivirus; Cattle | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Animal cell | tr_en_USTR |
dc.subject.emtree | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Cell culture | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Centrifugation | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Controlled study | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Culture medium | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Cytopathogenic effect | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Human | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Human cell | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Human tissue | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Microscopy | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Nonhuman | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Persistent infection | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Pestivirus | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | RNA isolation | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Virus detection | en_US |
dc.subject.emtree | Virus isolation | en_US |
Koleksiyonlarda Görünür: | Scopus TrDizin Web of Science |
Bu öğenin dosyaları:
Dosya | Açıklama | Boyut | Biçim | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Göktuna_Yeşilbağ_2017.pdf | 458.48 kB | Adobe PDF | Göster/Aç |
Bu öğe kapsamında lisanslı Creative Commons License