Login | Register

Post Reply 
they had sars-cov 2 in 2006. journal article
02-15-2021, 11:48 PM
Post: #1
they had sars-cov 2 in 2006. journal article
As with all diagnostic techniques, molecular testing requires careful quality control (1)(2)(3). In detection of RNA viruses, which are often present at low concentrations and are prone to degradation, stringent monitoring is needed for all aspects of assay performance, including virus lysis, RNA isolation, reverse transcription, amplification, and detection steps. Among many proposed RNA control preparations (4)(5), armored RNA is currently the most suitable for clinical applications as it carries the viral RNA target of interest in a form that is ribonuclease-resistant, noninfectious, and stable after prolonged incubation in clinical matrices, and the preparations are substantially less expensive to manufacture than virusinfected plasma (6)(7)(8). Thus, armored RNA has been applied as a positive control for a variety of RNA viruses (9).

Because most commercial armored RNA preparations contain exogenous sequences of <500 nucleotides (9), separate armored RNA species are often prepared for calibration of each target in multiple virus assays. To reduce costs and simplify multivirus detection, we are seeking to produce a single chimeric armored RNA species that might be used as a positive control for multiple viral targets. We consider this task to be feasible because the inventors of armored RNA predicted that, theoretically, at least 2 kb of nonbacteriophage RNA sequence might be encapsulated (8). As proof of this principle, we tried to directly package a 1200-nucleotide–long foreign RNA sequence containing gene fragments of hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV-1, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV1), and SARS-CoV2 into the original armored RNA production vector pAR-1 (8).

https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/articl...46/5627058

Those who know, know! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2021, 04:04 AM
Post: #2
RE: they had sars-cov 2 in 2006. journal article
I don't really understand what the implication is.
MAybe we are just dealing with different strains, like a 2006 strain and a 2019 strain.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2021, 04:34 AM
Post: #3
RE: they had sars-cov 2 in 2006. journal article
if we knew what we were dealing with why call it a novel coronavirus
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-16-2021, 05:09 AM
Post: #4
RE: they had sars-cov 2 in 2006. journal article
If you want me to do apologia, then novel coronavirus can be used in the sense of a new strain, with each strain being called a "coronavirus".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Does This Article SMELL of FAKE NEWS Liberal Propoganda? karasu 14 133 04-14-2021 02:08 PM
Last Post: karasu
  The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity - Scientific American Article EVILYOSHIDA 4 219 02-23-2021 11:36 PM
Last Post: Skookum Charlie
  Fear mongering grows over SARS like virus Redneck 6 1,741 02-10-2021 04:42 PM
Last Post: EVILYOSHIDA
  Johns Hopkins Pulls Article Admitting That Covid has Not Raised Total US Death toll CTsar 4 413 11-30-2020 03:49 AM
Last Post: CTsar

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)