Evaluating 6 ricin field detection assays.

Hans-Christian Slotved, Nadja Sparding, Julia Tanas Tanassi, Nina R Steenhard, Niels H H Heegaard
{"title":"Evaluating 6 ricin field detection assays.","authors":"Hans-Christian Slotved,&nbsp;Nadja Sparding,&nbsp;Julia Tanas Tanassi,&nbsp;Nina R Steenhard,&nbsp;Niels H H Heegaard","doi":"10.1089/bsp.2014.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study presents data showing the performance of 6 commercial detection assays against ricin around concentrations specified as detection limits by the producers. A 2-fold dilution series of 20 ng/ml ricin was prepared and used for testing the lateral-flow kits: BADD, Pro Strips™, ENVI, RAID DX, Ricin BioThreat Alert, and IMASS™ device. Three of the 6 tested field assays (IMASS™ device, ENVI assay, and the BioThreat Alert assay) were able to detect ricin, although differences in the measured detection limits compared to the official detection limits and false-negative results were observed. We were not able to get the BADD, Pro Strips™, and RAID assays to function in our laboratory. We conclude that when purchasing a field responder assay, there is large variation in the specificity of the assays, and a number of in-house tests must be performed to ensure functionality. </p>","PeriodicalId":87059,"journal":{"name":"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science","volume":"12 4","pages":"186-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/bsp.2014.0015","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2014.0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/6/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

This study presents data showing the performance of 6 commercial detection assays against ricin around concentrations specified as detection limits by the producers. A 2-fold dilution series of 20 ng/ml ricin was prepared and used for testing the lateral-flow kits: BADD, Pro Strips™, ENVI, RAID DX, Ricin BioThreat Alert, and IMASS™ device. Three of the 6 tested field assays (IMASS™ device, ENVI assay, and the BioThreat Alert assay) were able to detect ricin, although differences in the measured detection limits compared to the official detection limits and false-negative results were observed. We were not able to get the BADD, Pro Strips™, and RAID assays to function in our laboratory. We conclude that when purchasing a field responder assay, there is large variation in the specificity of the assays, and a number of in-house tests must be performed to ensure functionality.

评价6种蓖麻毒素现场检测方法。
本研究提供的数据显示了6种商业检测方法对蓖麻毒素的性能,这些检测方法的浓度由生产商指定为检测限。制备20 ng/ml蓖麻毒素2倍稀释系列,用于检测横向流动试剂盒:BADD、Pro Strips™、ENVI、RAID DX、ricin BioThreat Alert和IMASS™设备。6种现场检测方法(IMASS™装置、ENVI检测和生物威胁警报检测)中有3种能够检测到蓖麻毒素,尽管测量的检测限与官方检测限和假阴性结果存在差异。我们无法在我们的实验室中使用BADD、Pro Strips™和RAID检测方法。我们的结论是,当购买现场反应分析时,分析的特异性存在很大差异,必须进行许多内部测试以确保功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信