What are the limitations of using the norovirus HBGA binding assay?
Best insight from top research papers
The limitations of using the norovirus HBGA binding assay include the dependency of HBGA specificity on type and ionic strength, potential overestimation of infectious noroviruses with genome detection alone, and the need to consider the stability differences between virus-like particles (VLPs) and actual noroviruses during inactivation treatments . Additionally, the binding of bacteria to norovirus may not confer protection against heat-denaturation, impacting viral replication significantly . Furthermore, the blocking antibodies primarily target the P2 domain of norovirus VP1, with conformation-dependent binding epitopes, affecting the efficacy of the assay . Structural constraints, such as flexible aspartic acid hindering binding, may also limit the effectiveness of the assay for certain norovirus strains . These factors collectively highlight the complexities and challenges in utilizing the norovirus HBGA binding assay effectively.
Answers from top 5 papers
More filters
| Papers (5) | Insight |
|---|---|
| The limitations of the norovirus HBGA binding assay include the need for further elucidation of physiological and immunological consequences in nonsecretor individuals, as highlighted in the study. | |
27 Apr 2016 | Some noroviruses bind poorly to HBGAs due to structural constraints like flexible aspartic acid hindering binding, suggesting limitations in the HBGA binding assay. |
| Limitations of the norovirus HBGA binding assay include the lack of specific binding epitopes for GII.3 NoVs due to weak or absent binding to synthetic or salivary HBGAs. | |
9 Citations | Limitations of using the norovirus HBGA binding assay include reduced overestimation of infectious noroviruses compared to genome detection, with some identified constraints in specificity and ionic strength influence. |
12 Citations | The norovirus HBGA binding assay limitations include failure to protect Tulane virus from heat-inactivation, regardless of HBGA-like molecule expression in Escherichia coli strains O86:H2 and K-12. |
Related Questions
What factors contribute to poor docking results for GBA?5 answersFactors contributing to poor docking results for GBA include structural variations due to Parkinson's disease-linked nsSNP variants like E326K, N370S, and L444P, impacting binding affinities and dynamics. Additionally, challenges arise when docking large, negatively charged ligands like glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) due to their interactions with protein surfaces, requiring specialized methods like GAG-Dock for effective binding site sampling. Furthermore, the complexity of the GBA system, influenced by economic, social, and environmental factors, adds to the intricacy of regional collaborative development, potentially affecting docking outcomes. Patient factors such as female sex, higher body mass index, previous knee surgeries, comorbidities like diabetes and depression, and disability status can also contribute to poor results after total knee arthroplasty, highlighting the multifactorial nature of docking challenges.
How nipah assay where previously validated?5 answersThe triplex Nucleic Acid Lateral Flow Assay (NALFIA) for detection of Nipah virus (NiV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) was validated using primers adapted from validated real-time RT-PCR assays. A high-titer Nipah pseudovirus packaging system was constructed using the HIV lentivirus backbone vector and a safe neutralization assay for Nipah pseudovirus was established. Proteomics analyses on virus-like particles (VLPs) produced from several combinations of NiV proteins were performed to understand the involvement of cellular machinery and the major structural viral fusion (F), attachment (G), and matrix (M) proteins. A novel one-step qRT-PCR assay targeting the intergenic region separating the viral F and G proteins was developed for accurate quantification of viral genomic RNA. Three rapid NiV molecular diagnostic tests based on reverse transcription recombinase-based isothermal amplification coupled with lateral flow detection were developed and validated, with analytical sensitivity down to 1,000 copies/μL for synthetic NiV RNA.
What is the most widely used assay for norovirus detection?5 answersThe most widely used assay for norovirus detection is the real-time reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assay. This assay is considered the gold standard for sensitive and accurate detection of noroviruses. It is a robust and high-throughput method that is commonly used in outbreak prevention and control. The RT-qPCR assay has been evaluated for characteristics such as PCR efficiency, detection limit, and sensitivity and specificity, and has been found to be the most precise and accurate assay for norovirus detection. It has also been compared to other detection assays and has been shown to provide useful characterizations for optimized norovirus detection. The RT-qPCR assay is widely used in clinical practice and is an essential tool for the diagnosis and surveillance of norovirus infections.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of using ortho-Nitrophenyl-βgalactoside (ONPG) in enzymatic assays?5 answersOrtho-nitrophenyl-β-galactoside (ONPG) has advantages and disadvantages in enzymatic assays. One advantage is that ONPG can be used as a substrate for β-galactosidase, allowing for the measurement of enzyme activity. It follows typical enzyme kinetics and can be used to study the specificity of certain β-galactosidases and esterases. ONPG can also be used to test for β-galactosidase production in bacteria, including strains that are not members of the Enterobacteriaceae family. However, ONPG has limitations. For example, some strains of bacteria may be ortho-nitrophenyl-β-d-galactoside (ONPG)-negative, making it unsuitable for testing β-galactosidase activity in those strains. Additionally, while ONPG can provide valuable information about enzyme kinetics, it may not fully represent the physiological substrates and conditions in which the enzyme functions.
What are the limitations of the FRAP assay?5 answersThe limitations of the FRAP assay include difficulties in interpreting long-term FRAP responses due to the presence of intracellular flow and microscopic deformation of bleached regions. Conventional FRAP using a single stationary beam is not tailored for raster scanning microscopy, limiting its ability to capture the full molecular dynamics. The use of group reagents like Folin-Ciocalteu reagent in the FC assay can lead to significant systematic errors in the estimation of phenolic antioxidants, resulting in discrepancies with other spectrophotometric assays like the FRAP assay. Additionally, the presence of foreign substances can influence the results of the FRAP assay, leading to a decrease in sensitivity and potential underestimation of antioxidant capacity. These limitations highlight the need for improved techniques and alternative assays to accurately evaluate molecular turnover and diffusion dynamics in living cells.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Bradford protein assay?3 answersThe Bradford protein assay has several advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that it is a quick and fairly sensitive method for measuring protein concentrations. It is also easy to perform and has relative sensitivity. However, the assay can be affected by protein type, leading to variation in results. It is also sensitive to the presence of ethanol and wine polyphenols, which can decrease protein absorbance. Another disadvantage is that the assay can exhibit marked overestimations against protein standards, leading to inconsistent quantitation values. On the other hand, the assay is not affected by reducing agents and metal chelators at low concentrations, but can be interfered with by the presence of SDS, even at low concentrations. Overall, the Bradford protein assay is a quick and sensitive method, but it has limitations in terms of protein type variation and potential interference from certain substances.