Key result
Routine diagnostic procedures using ELISA and virus isolation revealed that several foot and mouth disease field samples from Saudi Arabia contained multiple virus types, complicating laboratory diagnosis.
Observational
Routine diagnostic procedures for foot and mouth disease may miss multiple-infected samples, complicating laboratory diagnosis in endemic regions.
May complicate FMD diagnosis in mixed infections; leaves open need for validated multiplex assays in endemic settings.
The current routine diagnostic procedures for foot and mouth disease (FMD) virus antigen detection combine the use of an indirect sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with virus isolation and amplification on cell culture. Several field samples recently received by the World Reference Laboratory for Foot and Mouth Disease which were initially diagnosed as containing a single virus type have subsequently been found to contain an additional virus type. Examples are given of the results of ELISAs performed on certain Saudia Arabian samples; these examples illustrate the problem which such multiple-infected samples present for laboratory diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferris et al. (1995) conducted an observational in Foot and mouth disease (FMD). Routine diagnostic procedures (ELISA and virus isolation) was evaluated on Detection of multiple virus types in field samples. Routine diagnostic procedures using ELISA and virus isolation revealed that several foot and mouth disease field samples from Saudi Arabia contained multiple virus types, complicating laboratory diagnosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: