Lumpy skin disease: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
PreDec2022>MadeleineGallic (Created page with "Julius J. Mwanandota Mercy Macharia Chanasa M. Ngeleja Raphael S. Sallu Mmeta G. Yongolo Charles Mayenga Timothy A. Holton (2018). [Validation of a diagnostic tool for the dia...") |
m (5 revisions imported) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Julius J. Mwanandota Mercy Macharia Chanasa M. Ngeleja Raphael S. Sallu Mmeta G. Yongolo Charles Mayenga Timothy A. Holton (2018). [ | Julius J. Mwanandota Mercy Macharia Chanasa M. Ngeleja Raphael S. Sallu Mmeta G. Yongolo Charles Mayenga Timothy A. Holton (2018). [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/vde.12690 Validation of a diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of lumpy skin disease] | ||
*Researchers performed a validation assay to review the efficiency of the diagnostic tools for diagnosing lumpy skin disease. The reasearchers did both PCR as well as LAMP 1 and LAMP 2. For each of the test the researchers did troubleshooting to figure out the optimal concentrations and temperatures as which both these assay work effectively. The researchers provided both of the primers for both LAMP and PCR as well as the temperatures and any additional reagents. They analyzed the results in a 2% agarose gel and it showed successful amplification. The researchers used both blood and tissue samples for both of the assays. In conclusion the researchers found that LAMP 1 had a higher diagnostic strength over PCR assay by its sensitivity and high DR in clinically affected animals. | *Researchers performed a validation assay to review the efficiency of the diagnostic tools for diagnosing lumpy skin disease. The reasearchers did both PCR as well as LAMP 1 and LAMP 2. For each of the test the researchers did troubleshooting to figure out the optimal concentrations and temperatures as which both these assay work effectively. The researchers provided both of the primers for both LAMP and PCR as well as the temperatures and any additional reagents. They analyzed the results in a 2% agarose gel and it showed successful amplification. The researchers used both blood and tissue samples for both of the assays. In conclusion the researchers found that LAMP 1 had a higher diagnostic strength over PCR assay by its sensitivity and high DR in clinically affected animals. High false negative rates. | ||
Amaresh Das, Shawn Babiuk, and Michael T. McIntosha (2012). [Development of a Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Rapid Detection of Capripoxviruses https://jcm.asm.org/content/jcm/50/5/1613.full.pdf] | |||
*you can see again in the results of this paper that the this assay did not have a high detection rate in both blood and swab samples and that tissue samples showed a higher detection rate but still was not the most sensitive. this seems to be consistent with other methods of detection as well as other primers for both PCR and LAMP. | |||
There's only one genome available, from 2001. Why? Sequence? | |||
Latest revision as of 12:57, 16 December 2022
Julius J. Mwanandota Mercy Macharia Chanasa M. Ngeleja Raphael S. Sallu Mmeta G. Yongolo Charles Mayenga Timothy A. Holton (2018). Validation of a diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of lumpy skin disease
- Researchers performed a validation assay to review the efficiency of the diagnostic tools for diagnosing lumpy skin disease. The reasearchers did both PCR as well as LAMP 1 and LAMP 2. For each of the test the researchers did troubleshooting to figure out the optimal concentrations and temperatures as which both these assay work effectively. The researchers provided both of the primers for both LAMP and PCR as well as the temperatures and any additional reagents. They analyzed the results in a 2% agarose gel and it showed successful amplification. The researchers used both blood and tissue samples for both of the assays. In conclusion the researchers found that LAMP 1 had a higher diagnostic strength over PCR assay by its sensitivity and high DR in clinically affected animals. High false negative rates.
Amaresh Das, Shawn Babiuk, and Michael T. McIntosha (2012). [Development of a Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Rapid Detection of Capripoxviruses https://jcm.asm.org/content/jcm/50/5/1613.full.pdf]
- you can see again in the results of this paper that the this assay did not have a high detection rate in both blood and swab samples and that tissue samples showed a higher detection rate but still was not the most sensitive. this seems to be consistent with other methods of detection as well as other primers for both PCR and LAMP.
There's only one genome available, from 2001. Why? Sequence?