CVI
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Al-Yousif, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kapil, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Al-Yousif, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Kapil, S.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, May 2002, p. 723-725, Vol. 9, No. 3
1071-412X/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.9.3.723-724.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Development, Evaluation, and Application of Lateral-Flow Immunoassay (Immunochromatography) for Detection of Rotavirus in Bovine Fecal Samples{dagger}

Yousif Al-Yousif, Joe Anderson, Cindy Chard-Bergstrom, and Sanjay Kapil*

Department of Diagnostic Medicine-Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506

Received 4 December 2001/ Returned for modification 6 February 2002/ Accepted 2 March 2002

A lateral-flow immunoassay (LFT) was developed to detect bovine rotavirus in fecal samples. Using samples (n = 74) from diarrheic calves, a comparison of the LFT with a commercial latex agglutination test (LAT) and transmission electron microscopy (EM) was conducted. When EM was used as the reference method, initial studies of 29 samples indicated 70 and 80% sensitivities of the LFT and LAT, respectively, with both being 100% specific. When the LAT was the reference test, the LFT was 75% sensitive and 91% specific. Additional specimens (n = 45) were tested by the LFT and LAT alone, and results were identical for both methods.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Diagnostic Medicine-Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506. Phone: (785) 532-4457. Fax: (785) 532-4829. E-mail: kapil{at}vet.ksu.edu.

{dagger} Contribution 01-436-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, May 2002, p. 723-725, Vol. 9, No. 3
1071-412X/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.9.3.723-724.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. Infect. Immun.
J. Clin. Microbiol. J. Virol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2002 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.