Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Laboratory tests are essential for confirming sporadic cases and outbreaks of rubella. Detection of rubella virus is often necessary to confirm rubella cases and to identify specimens to be used to characterize wild-type rubella viruses. The sensitivities of four methods for detecting rubella virus infection using throat swabs, which had been collected in Henan and Anhui provinces in China, were evaluated. The methods used were reverse transcription (RT)-PCR followed by Southern hybridization using RNA extracted directly from clinical specimens, virus growth in tissue culture followed by virus detection by RT-PCR, low-background immunofluorescence in infected tissue culture cells using monoclonal antibodies to the structural proteins of rubella virus, and a replicon-based method of detecting infectious virus. Among these four methods, direct RT-PCR followed by hybridization was the most sensitive method; the replicon-based method was the least difficult to perform.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2045274 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00289-07 | DOI Listing |