Abstract：Objective To compare the effects of four different methods in the detection of pathogen enterovirus type 71 (EV71)of hand-foot and mouth disease (HFMD), and to provide reference for clinical detection.Methods African green monkey cells (Vero) were cultured until the logarithmic growth phase before they were infected with the EV71 strain. The cytopathic effect (CPE) method, real-time polymerase chain reaction (Real-Time PCR), Western blot and immunofluorescence were used respectively to detect the infection of EV71.The results of the four tests were compared.Results All the four methods were able to detect the infection of EV71. Among them, CPE was the most economical method, but its detection cycle was so long as to take at least 96 hours, and it required good vitality of the virus. The effect of detection of Western blot and immunofluorescence was similar, and the experiment could be completed in 72 hours, but their sensitivity was low and a relatively large amount of virus was required. Real-Time PCR detection was both quick and highly sensitive, and the experiment could be completed in 48 hours.Conclusions Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.A method should be chosen according to different needs so as to make quick and accurate diagnosis of pathogens.
Zhu M, Duan H, Gao M, et al . Both ERK1 and ERK2 are required for enterovirus 71 (EV71) efficient replication [J]. Viruses, 2015, 7(3): 1344-1356.
[3]
McMinn P C. Recent advances in the molecular epidemiology and control of human enterovirus 71 infection [J]. Curr Opin Virol, 2012, 2(2): 199-205.
[4]
Wang X, Zhu C, Bao W, et al . Characterization of full-length enterovirus 71 strains from severe and mild disease patients in northeastern China [J]. PLoS One, 2012, 7(3): e32405.
[5]
Wang H Q, Meng S, Li Z R, et al . The antiviral effect of 7-hydroxyisoflavone against Enterovirus 71 in vitro [J]. J Asian Nat Prod Res, 2013, 15(4): 382-389.
[6]
Blomberg J, Lycke E, Ahlfors K, et al . Letter: New enterovirus type associated with aseptic meningitis and/or hand, foot and mouth disease [J]. Lancet, 1974, 2(7872): 112.
[7]
Hagiwara A, Tagaya I, Yoneyama T. Epidemic of hand, foot and mouth disease associated with enterovirus 71 infection [J]. Intervirology, 1978, 9(1): 60-63.
[8]
Wang J R, Tuan Y C, Tsai H P, et al . Change of major genotype of enterovirus 71 in outbreaks of hand-foot-and-mouth disease in taiwan between 1998 and 2000 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2002, 40(1): 10-15.
[9]
Huang S W, Hsu Y W, Smith D J, et al . Reemergence of enterovirus 71 in 2008 in Taiwan: dynamics of genetic and antigenic evolution from 1998 to 2008 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2009, 47(11): 3653-3662.
[10]
Chen S G, Cheng M L, Chen K H, et al . Antiviral activities of Schizonepeta tenuifolia Briq. against enterovirus 71 in vitro and in vivo [J]. Sci Rep, 2017,20(7): 935.
[11]
Yi E J, Shin Y J, Kim J H, et al . Enterovirus 71 infection and vaccines [J]. Clin Exp Vaccine Res, 2017, 6(1): 4-14.
[12]
Yang F, Ren L, Xiong Z, et al . Enterovirus 71 outbreak in the People’s Republic of China in 2008 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2009, 47(7): 2351-2352.
[13]
Chen T C, Chen G W, Hsiung C A, et al . Combining multiplex reverse transcription-PCR and a diagnostic microarray to detect and differentiate enterovirus 71 and coxsackievirus A16 [J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2006, 44(6): 2212-2219.
2018, Vol. 29 
