Key result
This review highlights the challenges in H1N1 diagnosis and compares the merits and demerits of conventional detection methods with newer, rapid techniques like biosensors.
Why the study?
Due to the fast multiplication of influenza A H1N1 virus, rapid detection methods are needed beyond conventional 3-4 hour testing.
Biosensors and other rapid detection methods offer faster and potentially more sensitive alternatives to conventional real-time PCR for H1N1 diagnosis.
Biosensors may enable faster H1N1 detection than PCR; leaves open need for prospective validation before routine adoption.
H1N1 (Swine flu) is caused by influenza A virus, which is a member of Orthomyxoviridae family. Transmission of H1N1 occurs from human to human through air or sometimes from pigs to humans. The influenza virus has different RNA segments, which can reassert to make new virus strain with the possibility to create an outbreak in unimmunized people. Gene reassortment is a process through which new strains are emerging in pigs, as it has specific receptors for both human influenza and avian influenza viruses. H1N1 binds specifically with an α-2,6 glycosidic bond, which is present in human respiratory tract cells as well as in pigs. Considering the fact of fast multiplication of viruses inside the living cells, rapid detection methods need an hour. Currently, WHO recommended methods for the detection of swine flu include real-time PCR in specific testing centres that take 3-4 h. More recently, a number of methods such as Antigen-Antibody or RT-LAMP and DNA biosensors have also been developed that are rapid and more sensitive. This review describes the various challenges in the diagnosis of H1N1, and merits and demerits of conventional vis-à-vis latest methods with special emphasis on biosensors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ravina et al. (2020) conducted a review in Influenza A H1N1 virus. Detection methods (biosensors, real-time PCR, RT-LAMP) was evaluated. This review highlights the challenges in H1N1 diagnosis and compares the merits and demerits of conventional detection methods with newer, rapid techniques like biosensors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: