标题: 美国科学家开发快速、低成本寨卡病毒检测工具 [打印本页] 作者: hantavirus 时间: 2017-5-5 09:05 标题: 美国科学家开发快速、低成本寨卡病毒检测工具 根据《科学 转化医学》杂志上5月3日发表的文章《Rapid and specific detection of Asian- and African-lineage Zika viruses》，美国科学家报道了一种快速、低成本可以用于野外检测寨卡病毒的方法。
这种新工具基于一种叫ＬＡＭＰ（环介导等温扩增）的技术，能直接从蚊子体内以及人的血液、唾液和精液中检测到寨卡病毒，其敏感性堪比目前的标准ＰＣＲ（聚合酶链反应）检测技术。但ＰＣＲ仪器价格从１．５万美元至２．５万美元不等，仅在实验室内使用；而新工具初步估计成本为２５０美元左右，能在野外使用。
“利用LAMP技术检测寨卡病毒要便宜得多，”来自美国科罗拉多州立大学的研究人员在一份声明中说，“大多数有寨卡疫情的国家都不富裕，所以努力开发低成本的检测工具很重要，它们也许有一天能在这些国家派上用处。”
新型检测方法大体如下：把蚊子压碎，取两毫升水及一些化学物质一起加入试管中，然后加热，等待溶液颜色发生变化，半小时至１小时内就能出结果。
通过分析健康人样本及从寨卡病毒感染者身上采集的样本，研究人员验证了这种新方法的有效性。重要的一点是，它不会把登革病毒和基孔肯雅病毒等与寨卡病毒相似的病原体误检测成寨卡病毒。
这种方法不仅能检测到蚊子体内和人体体液中的寨卡病毒，还能区分寨卡病毒的非洲株和亚洲株。前段时间大肆流行并引起小头症的是亚洲株寨卡病毒，但寨卡病毒最早于１９４７年在乌干达发现，非洲株寨卡病毒同样可能引发疫情。
Title：Rapid and specific detection of Asian- and African-lineage Zika viruses
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aag0538
Abstract：Understanding the dynamics of Zika virus transmission and formulating rational strategies for its control require precise diagnostic tools that are also appropriate for resource-poor environments. We have developed a rapid and sensitive loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay that distinguishes Zika viruses of Asian and African lineages. The assay does not detect chikungunya virus or flaviviruses such as dengue, yellow fever, or West Nile viruses. The assay conditions allowed direct detection of Zika virus RNA in cultured infected cells; in mosquitoes; in virus-spiked samples of human blood, plasma, saliva, urine, and semen; and in infected patient serum, plasma, and semen samples without the need for RNA isolation or reverse transcription. The assay offers rapid, specific, sensitive, and inexpensive detection of the Asian-lineage Zika virus strain that is currently circulating in the Western hemisphere, and can also detect the African-lineage Zika virus strain using separate, specific primers.
Authors and affiliations：
Nunya Chotiwan1,2,*, Connie D. Brewster1,*, Tereza Magalhaes2,3, James Weger-Lucarelli1,2, Nisha K. Duggal4, Claudia Rückert1,2, Chilinh Nguyen1,2, Selene M. Garcia Luna1,2, Joseph R. Fauver1,2, Barb Andre1, Meg Gray1,2, William C. Black IV1,2, Rebekah C. Kading1,2, Gregory D. Ebel1,2, Guillermina Kuan5, Angel Balmaseda6, Thomas Jaenisch7,8, Ernesto T. A. Marques3,9, Aaron C. Brault4, Eva Harris10, Brian D. Foy1,2, Sandra L. Quackenbush1, Rushika Perera1,2 and Joel Rovnak1,†
1Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
2Arthropod-borne Infectious Disease Laboratories, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
3Laboratory of Virology and Experimental Therapeutics, Centro de Pesquisas Aggeu Magalhaes, Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, Recife-PE, Brazil.
4Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA.
5Centro de Salud Sócrates Flores Vivas, Ministry of Health, Managua, Nicaragua.
6Laboratorio Nacional de Virología, Centro Nacional de Diagnóstico y Referencia, Ministry of Health, Managua, Nicaragua.
7Section Clinical Tropical Medicine, Department for Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
8German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF), partner site Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
9Center for Vaccine Research, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
10Division of Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720–7360, USA.
↵†Corresponding author. Email: joel.rovnak@colostate.edu
↵* These authors contributed equally to this work.