ABSTRACT
By the end of year 2002 there was an outbreak of atypical pneumonia in Southeast Asia which soon spread to other continents. This new severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was produced by a novel coronavirus. Due to the severity of the situation and risk of introduction of this pathology in our country, the need to arrange specific laboratory diagnostic tests arose. Classic techniques, such as the electron microscopy and molecular biology test such as retrotranscription followed by the polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were implemented. The araldit included cells infected with bovine coronavirus which allowed the viral particles to be visualized easily but it took more time in comparison with the negative staining of free particles from viral cultures. RT-PCR was able to detect RNA of isolated viruses from cases in Hong Kong and Germany.
A fines del año 2002 se inicia un brote de neumonía atípica en el Sudeste asiático el cual se extiende posteriormente a otros continentes. El nuevo síndrome respiratorio agudo grave (SARS) era producido por un coronavirus novedoso. Debido a la gravedad de la situación y al riesgo de introducción de esta patología en Argentina, se implementaron técnicas de diagnóstico clásicas como la microscopía electrónica, y moleculares como una reacción de retrotranscripción seguida de una reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (RT-PCR). La inclusiónen araldita de células infectadas con un coronavirus bovino permitió visualizar más fácilmente las partículas virales, pero requirió más tiempo en comparación con la coloración negativa de partículas libres de cultivos virales.La RT-PCR implementada fue capaz de detectar ARN de cepas de casos de Hong Kong y de Alemania.
Subject(s)
Humans , Emergencies , Global Health , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/diagnosis , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/isolation & purification , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Disease Outbreaks , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiologyABSTRACT
The clinical or epidemiological influenza diagnosis require fast, sensitive and accessible techniques for small laboratories. In order to investigate the sensitivity of the methods currently used in Argentina, the rapid diagnosis by indirect immunofluorescent assay (IF) was compared to the rapid viral culture in MDCK cells. The diagnosis of influenza virus infection was performed on 81 nasal and pharyngeal swabs collected from outpatients with upper respiratory infection, influenza-like syndrome. The samples were collected during 1998 winter season and both techniques were tested. The IF specificity and sensitivity obtained were 91.9 and 59.5, respectively. In the selection of the assay to be used for influenza diagnosis, the limitations of the simplest techniques such as IF should be considered. Furthermore, it is advisable to set up an optimized culture method in complex laboratories since culture is the only technique which allows the reference centers to perform the full characterization of the isolates.