2015
DOI: 10.1590/0103-8478cr20141202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Epidemiological status of felid herpesvirus type-1 and feline calicivirus infections in Brazil

Abstract: Feline calicivirus (FCV) and felid herpesvirus type-1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 32 publications
(124 reference statements)
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results showed that the prevalence of FHV-1 and FCV was 11.3 and 27.8%, respectively, and the prevalence of the two viruses was statistically significant (Table 2). This result was the same as that of previous epidemiological studies, which revealed that infections with FCV were more common (Henzel et al, 2015;Ravicini et al, 2016;Fernandez et al, 2017). In addition, the screening results using dnRT-PCR and conventional RT-PCR/PCR are consistent, and the concordance rates were 99.13% for FHV-1 and 98.26% for FCV (Table 3), respectively, suggesting that the dnRT-PCR could be used as a highly specific and sensitive method to differentiate FHV-1 and FCV in clinical samples.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The results showed that the prevalence of FHV-1 and FCV was 11.3 and 27.8%, respectively, and the prevalence of the two viruses was statistically significant (Table 2). This result was the same as that of previous epidemiological studies, which revealed that infections with FCV were more common (Henzel et al, 2015;Ravicini et al, 2016;Fernandez et al, 2017). In addition, the screening results using dnRT-PCR and conventional RT-PCR/PCR are consistent, and the concordance rates were 99.13% for FHV-1 and 98.26% for FCV (Table 3), respectively, suggesting that the dnRT-PCR could be used as a highly specific and sensitive method to differentiate FHV-1 and FCV in clinical samples.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%