Comparative study on three methods of nucleic acid extraction and three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument / 中华实验和临床病毒学杂志
Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Virology
; (6): 165-168, 2017.
Article
em Zh
| WPRIM
| ID: wpr-808159
Biblioteca responsável:
WPRO
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To explore the differences among three methods of nucleic acid extraction and three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument.@*Methods@#Twenty-five respiratory virus nucleic acid and 25 enterovirus nucleic acid positive samples were with selected at random and nucleic acids were extracted by using three methods (method A, B, and C). The results among different methods were analyzed by randomized block design. 25 respiratory viral nucleic acid positive specimens and enterovirus nucleic acid positive samples were detected by using three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument (instrument A, B, and C). The results among different instruments were analyzed by randomized block design.@*Results@#There was a significant difference among three methods of nucleic acid extraction in results(χ2=42.9162, P<0.001), in which method A and C had not significant difference(Z=0.837, P=0.3816>0.05), while method A vs. B, B vs. C were significantly different(Z=7.025, P<0.001; Z=7.9, P<0.001). There was also a significant difference among three kinds of real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR instrument in results(χ2=23.773, P<0.001), in which instrument B and C had no significant difference(Z=0.75, P=0.4533>0.05), while instrument A vs. B, A vs. C were significantly different(Z=5.70, P<0.001; Z=6.45, P<0.001).@*Conclusions@#There is difference among different methods and instruments in the test results under the same condition, which call for options in practical work according to need.
Texto completo:
1
Índice:
WPRIM
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
Idioma:
Zh
Revista:
Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Virology
Ano de publicação:
2017
Tipo de documento:
Article