AIM: To determine the relative effect of sample matrix on the quantitation of HIV RNA in plasma. METHOD: Two HIV-positive specimens were diluted into five and 10 different HIV-negative plasma samples, respectively. Branched DNA signal amplification technology and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction were used to measure the viral load. RESULTS: In one sample the viral load by polymerase chain reaction ranged from undetectable to 1.9 x 10(5) copies/ml, and the branched DNA results ranged from 2.6 x 10(4) to 4.2 x 10(4) HIV RNA equivalent/ml. In the other sample the corresponding figures were 6.3 x 10(4) to 5.5 x 10(5) copies/ml and 5.7 x 10(4) to 7.5 x 10(4) HIV RNA equivalents/ml. CONCLUSION: In contrast to reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction the branched DNA signal amplification assay does not require a separate extraction step or enzymatic amplification of the target. Therefore this measurement is less affected by the sample matrix and the signal generated is directly proportional to the viral load.
AIM: To determine the relative effect of sample matrix on the quantitation of HIV RNA in plasma. METHOD: Two HIV-positive specimens were diluted into five and 10 different HIV-negative plasma samples, respectively. Branched DNA signal amplification technology and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction were used to measure the viral load. RESULTS: In one sample the viral load by polymerase chain reaction ranged from undetectable to 1.9 x 10(5) copies/ml, and the branched DNA results ranged from 2.6 x 10(4) to 4.2 x 10(4) HIV RNA equivalent/ml. In the other sample the corresponding figures were 6.3 x 10(4) to 5.5 x 10(5) copies/ml and 5.7 x 10(4) to 7.5 x 10(4) HIV RNA equivalents/ml. CONCLUSION: In contrast to reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction the branched DNA signal amplification assay does not require a separate extraction step or enzymatic amplification of the target. Therefore this measurement is less affected by the sample matrix and the signal generated is directly proportional to the viral load.
Authors: Dennis J Hartigan-O'Connor; Kristina Abel; Koen K A Van Rompay; Bittoo Kanwar; Joseph M McCune Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: N L Davis; I J Caley; K W Brown; M R Betts; D M Irlbeck; K M McGrath; M J Connell; D C Montefiori; J A Frelinger; R Swanstrom; P R Johnson; R E Johnston Journal: J Virol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: M Clementi; S Menzo; P Bagnarelli; A Valenza; S Paolucci; R Sampaolesi; A Manzin; P E Varaldo Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: M P de Baar; A M van der Schoot; J Goudsmit; F Jacobs; R Ehren; K H van der Horn; P Oudshoorn; F de Wolf; A de Ronde Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: P Y Shi ; E B Kauffman; P Ren; A Felton; J H Tai; A P Dupuis; S A Jones; K A Ngo; D C Nicholas; J Maffei; G D Ebel; K A Bernard; L D Kramer Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: K Triques; J Coste; J L Perret; C Segarra; E Mpoudi; J Reynes; E Delaporte; A Butcher; K Dreyer; S Herman; J Spadoro; M Peeters Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: M Holodniy; L Mole; B Yen-Lieberman; D Margolis; C Starkey; R Carroll; T Spahlinger; J Todd; J B Jackson Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 5.948