Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-Throughput, Sensitive, and Accurate Multiplex PCR-Microsphere Flow Cytometry System for Large-Scale Comprehensive Detection of Respiratory Viruses

Open access
Lee, Wai-Ming, Grindle, Kris, Pappas, Tressa, Marshall, David J., Moser, Michael J., Beaty, Edward L., Shult, Peter A., Prudent, James R., Gern, James E.·2007·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Human respiratory viruses are a diverse group of pathogens composed of hundreds of virus strains, and this presents a major challenge for diagnostic laboratories. To efficiently detect numerous viruses in a large epidemiologic study, we developed a fast, multitarget, sensitive, and specific assay named the Respiratory MultiCode-PLx Assay (RMA). The RMA utilizes improved multiplex PCR chemistry (EraGen MultiCode-PLx technology) coupled with high-throughput microsphere flow cytometry (Luminex). Eighteen sets of virus-specific multiplex PCR primers were developed based on the conserved sequences of all available respiratory-virus sequences for eight distinct groups: human rhinovirus (HRV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus (PIV), influenza virus (InfV), metapneumovirus, adenovirus (Ad), coronavirus, and enterovirus. Each primer set detected 20 cDNA copies of the intended target per sample and had no reaction with 60,000 copies of human genomic DNA. The accuracy and sensitivity of the RMA for detecting respiratory viruses in human samples were tested with two sets of clinical specimens. First, 101 nasal-wash specimens that were positive for HRV, RSV, InfV, PIV, or Ad by traditional techniques were reanalyzed by RMA, and all target viruses were detected with an overall sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 99%. Second, 103 nasal-wash samples from 5-year-old children with asthma and respiratory symptoms were analyzed; RMA detected viruses in 74 specimens (71.8%) compared to only 24 (23.3%) by traditional culture and immunofluorescent-staining techniques. These results show that RMA is an accurate, sensitive, and practical test for respiratory-virus infections.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.02501-06

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 224

Metadata

Authors
Lee, W.-M., Grindle, K., Pappas, T., Marshall, D. J., Moser, M. J., Beaty, E. L., Shult, P. A., Prudent, J. R., & Gern, J. E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2007-08
Volume
45
Issue
8
Pages
2626-2634
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2160567265
Cited by
224
References
2
FWCI
18.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High-Throughput, Sensitive, and Accurate Multiplex PCR-Microsphere Flow Cytometry System for Large-Scale Comprehensive Detection of Respiratory Viruses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.02501-06
The paper
Lee, W.-M., Grindle, K., Pappas, T., Marshall, D. J., Moser, M. J., Beaty, E. L., Shult, P. A., Prudent, J. R., & Gern, J. E. (2007). High-Throughput, Sensitive, and Accurate Multiplex PCR-Microsphere Flow Cytometry System for Large-Scale Comprehensive Detection of Respiratory Viruses. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02501-06

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.