目的 比较4种不同的方法对手足口病(hand-foot and mouth disease,HFMD)病原体肠病毒71型(enterovirus type 71,EV71)感染的检测效果。方法 非洲绿猴肾细胞(Vero)培养至对数生长期后,加入EV71病毒株感染。分别采用细胞病变效应法(cytopathic effect,CPE)、实时荧光定量聚合酶链式反应(real time polymerase chain reaction,Real-Time PCR)、Western blot和免疫荧光法检测病毒感染情况,并对4种检测结果进行比较。结果 4种方法均可检测到EV71的感染,其中CPE最经济实惠,但是检测周期长,需要至少96 h,并且对病毒活力要求高;Western blot和免疫荧光检测相近,72 h即可完成实验,但灵敏度低,对病毒量有一定要求;Real-Time PCR检测既快速灵敏性又高,48 h即可完成实验。结论 不同的方法各有其优缺点,需要根据不同的需要进行选择,达到快速准确诊断病原体的目的。
Abstract
Objective To compare the effects of four different methods in the detection of pathogen enterovirus type 71 (EV71)of hand-foot and mouth disease (HFMD), and to provide reference for clinical detection.Methods African green monkey cells (Vero) were cultured until the logarithmic growth phase before they were infected with the EV71 strain. The cytopathic effect (CPE) method, real-time polymerase chain reaction (Real-Time PCR), Western blot and immunofluorescence were used respectively to detect the infection of EV71.The results of the four tests were compared.Results All the four methods were able to detect the infection of EV71. Among them, CPE was the most economical method, but its detection cycle was so long as to take at least 96 hours, and it required good vitality of the virus. The effect of detection of Western blot and immunofluorescence was similar, and the experiment could be completed in 72 hours, but their sensitivity was low and a relatively large amount of virus was required. Real-Time PCR detection was both quick and highly sensitive, and the experiment could be completed in 48 hours.Conclusions Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.A method should be chosen according to different needs so as to make quick and accurate diagnosis of pathogens.
关键词
手足口病 /
肠道病毒71型 /
细胞病变效应 /
实时荧光定量聚合酶链式反应 /
免疫荧光
Key words
hand-foot and mouth disease /
EV71 /
cytopathic effect /
Real-Time PCR /
immunofluorescence
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 吴改娥,郭建勋. 近五年全球主要新发感染性疾病防治现状[J]. 中华灾害救援医学, 2014, 2(10): 592-599.
[2] Zhu M, Duan H, Gao M, et al . Both ERK1 and ERK2 are required for enterovirus 71 (EV71) efficient replication [J]. Viruses, 2015, 7(3): 1344-1356.
[3] McMinn P C. Recent advances in the molecular epidemiology and control of human enterovirus 71 infection [J]. Curr Opin Virol, 2012, 2(2): 199-205.
[4] Wang X, Zhu C, Bao W, et al . Characterization of full-length enterovirus 71 strains from severe and mild disease patients in northeastern China [J]. PLoS One, 2012, 7(3): e32405.
[5] Wang H Q, Meng S, Li Z R, et al . The antiviral effect of 7-hydroxyisoflavone against Enterovirus 71 in vitro [J]. J Asian Nat Prod Res, 2013, 15(4): 382-389.
[6] Blomberg J, Lycke E, Ahlfors K, et al . Letter: New enterovirus type associated with aseptic meningitis and/or hand, foot and mouth disease [J]. Lancet, 1974, 2(7872): 112.
[7] Hagiwara A, Tagaya I, Yoneyama T. Epidemic of hand, foot and mouth disease associated with enterovirus 71 infection [J]. Intervirology, 1978, 9(1): 60-63.
[8] Wang J R, Tuan Y C, Tsai H P, et al . Change of major genotype of enterovirus 71 in outbreaks of hand-foot-and-mouth disease in taiwan between 1998 and 2000 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2002, 40(1): 10-15.
[9] Huang S W, Hsu Y W, Smith D J, et al . Reemergence of enterovirus 71 in 2008 in Taiwan: dynamics of genetic and antigenic evolution from 1998 to 2008 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2009, 47(11): 3653-3662.
[10] Chen S G, Cheng M L, Chen K H, et al . Antiviral activities of Schizonepeta tenuifolia Briq. against enterovirus 71 in vitro and in vivo [J]. Sci Rep, 2017,20(7): 935.
[11] Yi E J, Shin Y J, Kim J H, et al . Enterovirus 71 infection and vaccines [J]. Clin Exp Vaccine Res, 2017, 6(1): 4-14.
[12] Yang F, Ren L, Xiong Z, et al . Enterovirus 71 outbreak in the People’s Republic of China in 2008 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2009, 47(7): 2351-2352.
[13] Chen T C, Chen G W, Hsiung C A, et al . Combining multiplex reverse transcription-PCR and a diagnostic microarray to detect and differentiate enterovirus 71 and coxsackievirus A16 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2006, 44(6): 2212-2219.
PDF(1031 KB)
