↓ Skip to main content

Development of an antigen-capture ELISA for the quantitation of equine arteritis virus in culture supernatant

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Virology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Development of an antigen-capture ELISA for the quantitation of equine arteritis virus in culture supernatant
Published in
Archives of Virology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00705-018-3746-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ting Qi, Yue Hu, Zhe Hu, Shihua Zhao, Ann Cullinane, Pamela Lyons, Sarah Gildea, Xiaojun Wang

Abstract

Quantitation of virions is one of the important indexes in virological studies. To establish a sensitive and rapid quantitative detection method for equine arteritis virus (EAV), an antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (AC-ELISA) was developed by using two EAV nucleoprotein monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), 2B9 and 2B3, prepared in this study. After condition optimization, mAb 2B9 was used as the capture antibody, and HRP-labeled 2B3 was chosen as the detecting antibody. The AC-ELISA had a good standard curve when viral particles of the Bucyrus EAV strain were used as a reference standard. The detection limit for the Bucyrus EAV strain was 36 PFU, and the method had a good linear relationship between 72-2297 PFU. The AC-ELISA could specifically detect the Bucyrus EAV strain and had no cross-reaction with other equine viruses. The sensitivity of the AC-ELISA was much higher than that of a western blotting assay but lower than that of a real-time PCR method. However, as a quantitative antigen detection method, the sensitivity of the AC-ELISA was approximately 300 times than the western blotting assay. Furthermore, the AC-ELISA assay could be successfully used in quantification of viral content in an in vitro infection assay, such as a one-step growth curve of EAV, as well as in a transfection assay, such as virus rescue from an infectious cDNA clone of EAV. These results show that the AC-ELISA established in this study is a good alternative for antigen detection of EAV, being a simple, convenient and quantitative detection method for EAV antigens.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Unspecified 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,465,050
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Virology
#3,413
of 4,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#382,638
of 445,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Virology
#75
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.