JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheon, D.
Right arrow Articles by Chae, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cheon, D.
Right arrow Articles by Chae, C
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 12, Issue 6, 582-587
Copyright © 2000 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Articles

Comparison of virus isolation, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridization for the detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus from naturally aborted fetuses and stillborn piglets

DS Cheon and C Chae

Department of Veterinary Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and School of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul National University, Suwon, Kyounggi-Do, Republic of Korea.

Virus isolation, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridization methods were compared for the detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV). Seven aborted fetuses and 6 stillborn piglets naturally infected with PRRSV were used in the study. Viral antigen and viral nucleic acid were detected in macrophages and dendritic cells in the spleen, tonsil, lymph nodes, and thymus; in macrophages of liver, heart, and lung; and in endothelial cells and myocytes of the heart. Viral antigen and viral nucleic acid were most consistently detected in the spleen. Of the 13 samples, 6 were positive for PRRSV by all 4 techniques. Four (31%) samples were positive for PRRSV by RT-PCR, in situ hybridization, and virus isolation. Two (15%) samples were positive for PRRSV by virus isolation, RT-PCR, and in situ hybridization. One (8%) was positive for PRRSV by virus isolation and RT-PCR. The RT-PCR identified the presence of PRRSV more frequently than the other methods. However, when only formalin-fixed tissues are submitted, immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization would be useful methods for the detection of PRRSV antigen and nucleic acid.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.