Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 10, Number 2—February 2004
THEME ISSUE
2004 SARS Edition
Laboratory Study

Real-Time Reverse Transcription–Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for SARS-associated Coronavirus

Shannon L. Emery*, Dean D. Erdman*Comments to Author , Michael D. Bowen*, Bruce R. Newton*, Jonas M. Winchell*, Richard F. Meyer*, Suxiang Tong*, Byron T. Cook*, Brian P. Holloway*, Karen A. McCaustland*, Paul A. Rota*, Bettina Bankamp*, Luis E. Lowe*, Tom G. Ksiazek*, William J. Bellini*, and Larry J. Anderson*
Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Main Article

Table 4

Comparison of real-time RT-PCR assays with culture and conventional RT-PCRa

SARS-CoV dilutionb Conventional RT-PCR Real-time RT-PCR
SARS1 SARS2 SARS3
10–4
3/3c
3/3
3/3
3/3
10–5
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
10–6
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
10–7
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
10–8
0/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
10–9
0/3
0/3
1/3
0/3
10–10 0/3 0/3 0/3 0/3

aRT-PCR, reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction; SARS-CoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus.
bSerial 10-fold dilution of SARS-CoV stock culture containing 1 x 107 PFUs/mL.
cNumber of positive results divided by the number of replicates tested.

Main Article

Page created: January 27, 2011
Page updated: January 27, 2011
Page reviewed: January 27, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external