Comparison of ELISA and RT-PCR for the detection of Prunus necrotic ring spot virus and prune dwarf virus in almond (Prunus dulcis)

Mekuria, Genet Teshome; Ramesh, Sunita A.; Alberts, Evita; Bertozzi, Terry; Wirthensohn, M.; Collins, Graham; Sedgley, Margaret

doi:10.1016/j.jviromet.2003.08.014

Cited by 45 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results reported here are similar to previous reports comparing ELISA and RT-PCR for detection of Prunus necrotic ring spot virus and Prune dwarf virus in almond (Mekuria et al, 2003). In a separate study comparing the efficacy of ELISA and RT-PCR in detecting TSWV, results showed that 3 asymptomatic, infected chrysanthemum plants (out of 50 plants) were identified to be infected by both assays (Matsuura et al, 2002).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparison of ELISA and RT-PCR assays for the detection of Tomato spotted wilt virus in peanut

Dang¹,

Rowland²,

Faircloth³

2009

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnosis of Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) in peanut can be accomplished by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but there has been no report of a direct comparison of the success of the two assays in evaluating infection rates of field-grown peanut. We collected peanut root samples from field-grown plants, 76 in 2006 and 48 in 2007, and tested these samples by both ELISA and RT-PCR assays for the presence of TSWV. Out of 124 samples, 50 (40.3%) and 57 (46.0%) were positive for TSWV by ELISA and RT-PCR respectively. In 13.7% of these samples, ELISA and RT-PCR differed in their results. However, Chi square analysis showed no significant difference between the results for these two assays. This result supports the conclusion that ELISA and RT-PCR are comparable for detecting TSWV infection rates in field-grown peanuts.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparison of ELISA and RT-PCR assays for the detection of Tomato spotted wilt virus in peanut

Dang¹,

Rowland²,

Faircloth³

2009

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ELISA readings were mostly negative except for one almond sample from HP which gave approximately twice the ELISA reading when compared with the negative control for ACLSV (Table 1). No amplification from any sample was obtained for PDV using a virus-specific primer pair (Mekuria et al 2003) in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterisation ofApple chlorotic leaf spot virusinfecting almonds in India

Rana

Chandel

Hallan

et al. 2008

Austral. Plant Disease Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restricted field surveys were conducted to determine the presence and incidence of virus infections in almonds. Representative asymptomatic samples from six locations were tested by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay and reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction for known stone fruit viruses. Only Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus (ACLSV) infection was detected in one of the six almond samples from the state of Himachal Pradesh. Comparison of sequenced amplicons with two available sequences of ACLSV-almond isolates revealed 92% and 94% amino acid identity. However, the Indian ACLSV-almond isolate shared maximum (98%) homology at the amino acid level to ACLSV-peach (AM498050) and wild apricot (AM498048) isolates from India. The C-terminus is highly conserved within the Indian ACLSV isolates with the exception of a few residues which in the case of the Indian almond isolates are more typical of peach and wild apricot isolate sequences. Additional

show abstract

“…This assay is capable of detecting HVX even at low titre in tolerant cultivars such as 'Frances Williams', where traditional ELISA failed to detect the virus (Lockhart, 2002). The inability of ELISA to detect viruses at low titres in some hosts is common and has been noted earlier (Mekuria et al, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%