Key result
Homozygous protective IFIH1 946 Ala allele linked to ~74% lower odds of enterovirus RNA.
Why the study?
Traditional detection of enteroviruses and rhinoviruses by virus isolation is laborious and time-consuming, necessitating rapid and sensitive diagnostic assays.
Case-Control (n=151)
Yes
Odds Ratio: 0.26 (95% CI 0.087–0.84)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.5% vs 31%
p-value: p=0.031
Associated with lower enterovirus RNA detection; leaves open whether IFIH1 genotyping informs diagnostics or persistence studies.
Detection of enteroviruses and rhinoviruses has traditionally been based on laborious and time-consuming virus isolation. Recently, rapid and sensitive assays for detecting enterovirus and rhinovirus genomic sequences by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been introduced. An RT-PCR assay is described that amplifies both enteroviral and rhinoviral sequences, followed by liquid-phase hybridization carried out in a microtiter plate format. In the hybridization assay, amplicons are identified by enterovirus- or rhinovirus-specific probes carrying lanthanide chelate labels, which can be detected simultaneously by time-resolved fluorometry. The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-PCR-hybridization method were evaluated with a representative collection of enteroviruses and rhinoviruses and tested further its applicability to the clinical setting with cerebrospinal fluid samples and nasopharyngeal aspirates. The RT-PCR assay amplified all enteroviruses and rhinoviruses tested, and all but one amplicon gave a positive result in the subsequent hybridization assay. The RT-PCR-hybridization method was more sensitive than virus isolation for the detection of enteroviruses and rhinoviruses in the clinical samples. High sensitivity, rapidity, and easy performance make the assay suitable for the routine diagnosis of enterovirus and rhinovirus infections.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lönnrot et al. (1999) conducted a case-control in Type 1 diabetes and islet autoimmunity (n=151). Homozygosity for the IFIH1 protective allele (946 Ala) vs. Homozygosity for the IFIH1 predisposing risk allele (946 Thr) was evaluated on Detection of enterovirus RNA in peripheral blood (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.087, 0.84, p=0.031). Homozygosity for the protective allele (946 Ala) of the IFIH1 gene significantly reduced the odds of detecting enterovirus RNA in peripheral blood compared to the homozygous risk allele (OR 0.26).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: