Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 37 issue 2 (july to december 2003) : 85 - 88

COMPARISON OF FIDELITY OF NUCLEIC ACID PROBE WITH CONVENTIONAL ANTIGEN DETECTION ASSAYS IN DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS

M
M. Parthiban
S
S. Manoharan
T
T.V. Meenambigai
N
N. Daniel Joy Chandran
1Vaccine Research Centre (Viral Vaccines) Centre for Animal Health Studies, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai - 600 051, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Parthiban M., Manoharan S., Meenambigai T.V., Chandran Joy Daniel N. (2025). COMPARISON OF FIDELITY OF NUCLEIC ACID PROBE WITH CONVENTIONAL ANTIGEN DETECTION ASSAYS IN DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 37(2): 85 - 88. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The efficiency of PCR generated probe coupled with enhanced chemiluminescent hybridization assay was compared with conventional antigen detection assays to detect the IBD virus infection in chicks in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The hybridization assay was found to be superior to conventional antigen detection assays in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Akin, A. et a!' (1993). J Vet Diag. Invest., 5: 166-73.
    2. Chomczynski, P. and Sacchi, N. (1987). Ana!' Biochem., 162: 156-59.
    3. Davis, S.v. and Boyle, J.A. (1990). Avian Dis., 34: 329-335.
    4. Hirai, K eta!. (1972). Avian Dis., 16: 961-964.
    5. Henderson, KS. and Jackwood, D.J. (1990). Avian Dis., 34: 744-748.
    6. ·Jackwood. D.J. et ai. (1982). Avian Dis., 26: 871-882.
    7. ,Jackwood, D.J et ai. (1989). C/in. Microbio!., 27: 2437-2443.
    8. Jackwood, D.J. etai. (1992). Avian Dis., 36: 154-157.
    9. Maiti, N.K. etal. (1980). Comp.immunoi. Microbio!.lnfect. Dis., 16: 245-250.
    10. Marquarat, W. et a!' (1980). Avian Dis., 24: 375-385.
    11. Nachimuthu, 1,. eta!. (1993.lnd. J Anim. Sci., 63: 817-819.
    12. Parthiban. M. et a!' (2000)./nd. J Anim. Sci., 70: 265-266,
    13. Stram, Y. et ai. (1994). Avian Dis., 38: 879-884.
    14. Wu, c.c. et a!' (1992). Avian Dis., 36: 221-226.
    Published In
    Indian Journal of Animal Research
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 37 issue 2 (july to december 2003) : 85 - 88

      COMPARISON OF FIDELITY OF NUCLEIC ACID PROBE WITH CONVENTIONAL ANTIGEN DETECTION ASSAYS IN DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS

      M
      M. Parthiban
      S
      S. Manoharan
      T
      T.V. Meenambigai
      N
      N. Daniel Joy Chandran
      1Vaccine Research Centre (Viral Vaccines) Centre for Animal Health Studies, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai - 600 051, India

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- Parthiban M., Manoharan S., Meenambigai T.V., Chandran Joy Daniel N. (2025). COMPARISON OF FIDELITY OF NUCLEIC ACID PROBE WITH CONVENTIONAL ANTIGEN DETECTION ASSAYS IN DIAGNOSIS OF INFECTIOUS BURSAL DISEASE VIRUS. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 37(2): 85 - 88. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      The efficiency of PCR generated probe coupled with enhanced chemiluminescent hybridization assay was compared with conventional antigen detection assays to detect the IBD virus infection in chicks in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The hybridization assay was found to be superior to conventional antigen detection assays in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Akin, A. et a!' (1993). J Vet Diag. Invest., 5: 166-73.
        2. Chomczynski, P. and Sacchi, N. (1987). Ana!' Biochem., 162: 156-59.
        3. Davis, S.v. and Boyle, J.A. (1990). Avian Dis., 34: 329-335.
        4. Hirai, K eta!. (1972). Avian Dis., 16: 961-964.
        5. Henderson, KS. and Jackwood, D.J. (1990). Avian Dis., 34: 744-748.
        6. ·Jackwood. D.J. et ai. (1982). Avian Dis., 26: 871-882.
        7. ,Jackwood, D.J et ai. (1989). C/in. Microbio!., 27: 2437-2443.
        8. Jackwood, D.J. etai. (1992). Avian Dis., 36: 154-157.
        9. Maiti, N.K. etal. (1980). Comp.immunoi. Microbio!.lnfect. Dis., 16: 245-250.
        10. Marquarat, W. et a!' (1980). Avian Dis., 24: 375-385.
        11. Nachimuthu, 1,. eta!. (1993.lnd. J Anim. Sci., 63: 817-819.
        12. Parthiban. M. et a!' (2000)./nd. J Anim. Sci., 70: 265-266,
        13. Stram, Y. et ai. (1994). Avian Dis., 38: 879-884.
        14. Wu, c.c. et a!' (1992). Avian Dis., 36: 221-226.
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Indian Journal of Animal Research

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)