Home|Journals|Articles by Year|Audio Abstracts
 

Original Research

Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. (Bot.). 2006; 2(0): 13-17


COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h.




Abstract

Sensitivities of three serological tests;
optimized Dot Immunobinding Assay (DIA),
indirect Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
(ELISA) and Tissue Blot Immunobinding Assay
(TBIA) were compared for detecting cowpea
mosaic Como virus (CPMV) in different plant
organs as well as in leaves of plants at
different periods after inoculation. Results
showed that indirect ELISA was more sensitive
than indirect DIA. Indirect ELISA detect the
virus in extracted sap diluted up to 1: 103 in
root, 1: 104 and 1:5x105 in leaves, while, with
indirect DIA the virus could be detected in sap
extracted from roots, stems and leaves of
infected plants at dilution up to 1:5x102, 1: 103
and 1:5x104, respectively. TBIA easily detect
CPMV in roots, stems and leaves of infected
plants. When the tests were compared for
detecting the virus in 1:100 diluted sap
extracted from leaves of infected plants, after
different period of mechanical inoculation,
results showed that sensitivity of DIA was
similar to that of indirect ELISA, which could
detect CPMV after 8, 16 and 24 days after
mechanical inoculation, while the virus could
be detected after 4, 8, 16 and 24 days of
inoculation by TBIA.

Key words: Dot Immunobinding Assay (DIA), indirect Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Tissue Blot Immunobinding Assay (TBIA).






Full-text options


Share this Article


Online Article Submission
• ejmanager.com




ejPort - eJManager.com
Refer & Earn
JournalList
About BiblioMed
License Information
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

The articles in Bibliomed are open access articles licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.