Detection methods for influenza A H1N1 virus with special reference to biosensors: a review

Abstract

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.

How Nanophotonic Label-Free Biosensors Can Contribute to Rapid and Massive Diagnostics of Respiratory Virus Infections: COVID-19 Case

“…The vast majority of the work in respiratory virus diagnosis targets influenza viruses and the different subtypes. 102 In recent publications, for example, Zhao et al reported an optical SPR fiber sensor for the detection of avian influenza virus. 103 With a compact and low-cost system, they were able to detect around 5 × 10 5 EID 50 in 100 μL sample within 10 min.…”

Biosensors for the detection of respiratory viruses: A review

“…The majority of biosensor development found in the literature are designed to Influenza virus detection, as attested by the high number of reviews regarding this subject [124] , [125] , [126] , [127] , [128] . Table 2 contains data based on biosensor research directed to Influenza virus detection in the past five years.…”

Field-Effect Sensors for Virus Detection: From Ebola to SARS-CoV-2 and Plant Viral Enhancers

“…The RT-PCR test is highly sensitive and detects even a tiny viral load in patients. However, the test is labor-intensive, requires skilled personnel, bulky and expensive equipment, is not suitable as a first-line screening tool or for on-site applications, and time-consuming (takes from 3 h up to 2-3 days including preparation of the viral RNA to give results) (Morales-Narváez and Dincer, 2020;Ozer et al, 2020;Ravina et al, 2020). For an effective outbreak containment, this time span is too long.…”

“…In order to overcome the limitations of RT-PCR-based systems and to facilitate massive diagnostic testing to counteract the increasing number of undetected cases, test manufacturers around the world have recently developed various portable/handheld, rapid, easy-to-use, point-of-care immunodiagnostic devices for on-site SARS-CoV2 detection in low-resource settings (e.g., in doctors' practices or directly at home), each of which with its pros and cons (Morales-Narváez and Dincer, 2020;Nguyen et al, 2020;Ozer et al, 2020;Ravina et al, 2020;Udugama et al, 2020;Younes et al, 2020). These simple test kits are mostly based either on the detection of virus proteins in respiratory samples (e.g., sputum and throat swab), or of antibodies in human blood/serum, generated by the immune system in response to infection.…”