AREAS COVERED: Published and unpublished studies from January 1981 to June 2020 were systematically reviewed on PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Additionally, the reference list of all studies was hand-searched for additional studies. This effort identified a total of 104614 registered patients and suggests identification of at least 10590 additional PID patients, mainly from countries located in Asia and Africa. Molecular defects in genes known to cause PID were identified and reported in 13852 (13.2% of all registered) patients.
EXPERT OPINION: Although these data suggest some progress in the identification and documentation of PID patients worldwide, achieving the basic requirement for the global PID burden estimation and registration of undiagnosed patients will require more reinforcement of the progress, involving both improved diagnostic facilities and neonatal screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The different primer sets were developed using bioinformatics software DNASTAR. The E. coli cells were used for recombinant protein expression.
RESULTS: The NiV 'G' region primers were designed and amplified for 1 kb fragment and cloned. The NiV 'G' fragments were sub-cloned in pET-28(+) B and pGEX-5x-1. Recombinant protein thus obtained in soluble form in both the cases was essayed using western blot. The result showed the protein expression yield was more in pET-28(+) B with low stability and vice versa for pGEX-5x-1.
CONCLUSION: The antibodies raised from the protein can be used as diagnostic reagent for detection of NiV. Thus, a new diagnostic technique can be industrialized.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using an Oragene® RNA kit, the total RNA was purified from the saliva of 10 patients with chronic periodontitis and 10 patients without chronic periodontitis. The quantity and quality of the total RNA was determined, and a measure of gene expression via cDNA was undertaken using the Affymetrix microarray system. The microarray profiling result was further validated by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
RESULTS: Spectrophotometric analysis showed the total RNA purified from each participant ranged from 0.92 μg/500 μL to 62.85 μg/500 μL. There was great variability in the quantity of total RNA obtained from the 2 groups in the study with a mean of 10.21 ± 12.71 μg/500 μL for the periodontitis group and 15.97 ± 23.47 μg/500 μL for the control group. Further the RNA purity (based on the A260 /A280 ratio) for the majority of participants (9 periodontitis and 6 controls) were within the acceptable limits for downstream analysis (2.0 ± 0.1). The study samples, showed 2 distinct bands at 23S (3800 bp) and 16S (1500 bp) characteristic of bacterial rRNA. Preliminary microarray analysis was performed for 4 samples (P2, P6, H5 and H9). The percentage of genes present in each of the 4 samples was not consistent with about 1.8%-18.7% of genes being detected. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction confirmed that the total RNA purified from each sample was mainly bacterial RNA (Uni 16S) with minimal human mRNA.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that minimal amounts of human RNA were able to be isolated from the saliva of patients with periodontitis as well as controls. Further work is required to enhance the extraction process of human mRNA from saliva if the salivary transcriptome is to be used in determining individual patient susceptibility.
Methods: Specimens were studied for evidence of adenovirus (AdV), enterovirus (EV) and coronavirus (CoV) with panspecies gel-based nested PCR/RT-PCR assays. Gene sequences of specimens positive by panspecies assays were sequenced and studied with the NCBI Basic Local Alignment Search Tool software.
Results: There was considerable discordance between real-time and conventional molecular methods. The real-time AdV assay found a positivity of 10.4%; however, the AdV panspecies assay detected a positivity of 12.4% and the conventional AdV-Hexon assay detected a positivity of 19.6%. The CoV and EV panspecies assays similarly detected more positive specimens than the real-time assays, with a positivity of 7.8% by the CoV panspecies assay versus 4.2% by rRT-PCR, and 8.0% by the EV panspecies assay versus 1.0% by rRT-PCR. We were not able to ascertain virus viability in this setting. While most discordance was likely due to assay sensitivity for previously described human viruses, two novel, possible zoonotic AdV were detected.
Conclusions: The observed differences in the two modes of amplification suggest that where a problem with sensitivity is suspected, real-time assay results might be supplemented with panspecies conventional PCR/RT-PCR assays.