Kullanım Kılavuzu
Neden sadece 3 sonuç görüntüleyebiliyorum?
Sadece üye olan kurumların ağından bağlandığınız da tüm sonuçları görüntüleyebilirsiniz. Üye olmayan kurumlar için kurum yetkililerinin başvurması durumunda 1 aylık ücretsiz deneme sürümü açmaktayız.
Benim olmayan çok sonuç geliyor?
Birçok kaynakça da atıflar "Soyad, İ" olarak gösterildiği için özellikle Soyad ve isminin baş harfi aynı olan akademisyenlerin atıfları zaman zaman karışabilmektedir. Bu sorun tüm dünyadaki atıf dizinlerinin sıkça karşılaştığı bir sorundur.
Sadece ilgili makaleme yapılan atıfları nasıl görebilirim?
Makalenizin ismini arattıktan sonra detaylar kısmına bastığınız anda seçtiğiniz makaleye yapılan atıfları görebilirsiniz.
 Görüntüleme 17
Comparison of Different 18S rRNA Primers with Conventional PCR Methods in Determination of Plasmodium spp. and Evaluation of Nested PCR Method
2020
Dergi:  
Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences
Yazar:  
Özet:

Purpose: In this study, our objective was to develop a conventional PCR method in our laboratory to support microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests in routine diagnosis of malaria. For this purpose, by comparing two different primer sets, it was aimed to determine which primer set gave better results in diagnosis and to use this primer set in future studies.Methods: Microscopic examination is the gold standard for diagnosis of Plasmodium infections. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional PCR method, which was based on two different primer sets with a common gene region, were calculated. Afterward, nested PCR were performed for species differentiation using PCR products obtained with both primer pairs.Results: 165 of 168 blood samples 98.21% , which were microscopically Plasmodium vivax positive, were also positive with rPLU1, rPLU5 primers. Furthermore, 163 of these samples 97.02% were also positive with rPLU5, rPLU6 primers.In addition, to evaluate whether the method detected all species, PCR was carried out with all species positive samples for both primer pairs. Comparison with microscopic examination showed that sensitivity and specificity of rPLU1 and rPLU5 primer pairs were 98.21% and 100%, respectively while sensitivity and specificity of rPLU5 and rPLU6 primer pairs were 97.02% and 100%, respectively. We found a perfect consistency between microscopy and PCR results with both primer sets.Conclusion: Although there was no significant difference between two primer pairs, which provided better results for cases required a conventional first step PCR method during routine laboratory practice, we decided to prefer rPLU1 and rPLU5 primer pair

Anahtar Kelimeler:

0
2020
Yazar:  
Atıf Yapanlar
Bilgi: Bu yayına herhangi bir atıf yapılmamıştır.
Benzer Makaleler












Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences

Alan :   Sağlık Bilimleri

Dergi Türü :   Uluslararası

Metrikler
Makale : 448
Atıf : 87
2023 Impact/Etki : 0.022
Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences