Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 646

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Genotyping of 27 Human Papillomavirus Types by Using L1 Consensus PCR Products by a Single-Hybridization, Reverse Line Blot Detection Method

Open access
Gravitt, P. E., Peyton, C. L., Apple, R. J., Wheeler, C. M.·1998·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Amplification of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA by L1 consensus primer systems (e.g., MY09/11 or GP5 + /6 + ) can detect as few as 10 to 100 molecules of HPV targets from a genital sample. However, genotype determination by dot blot hybridization is laborious and requires at least 27 separate hybridizations for substantive HPV-type discrimination. A reverse blot method was developed which employs a biotin-labeled PCR product hybridized to an array of immobilized oligonucleotide probes. By the reverse blot strip analysis, genotype discrimination of multiple HPV types can be accomplished in a single hybridization and wash cycle. Twenty-seven HPV probe mixes, two control probe concentrations, and a single reference line were immobilized to 75- by 6-mm nylon strips. Each individual probe line contained a mixture of two bovine serum albumin-conjugated oligonucleotide probes specific to a unique HPV genotype. The genotype spectrum discriminated on this strip includes the high-risk, or cancer-associated, HPV genotypes 16, 18, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 68 (ME180), MM4 (W13B), MM7 (P291), and MM9 (P238A) and the low-risk, or non-cancer-associated, genotypes 6, 11, 40, 42, 53, 54, 57, 66, and MM8 (P155). In addition, two concentrations of β-globin probes allowed for assessment of individual specimen adequacy following amplification. We have evaluated the performance of the strip method relative to that of a previously reported dot blot format (H. M. Bauer et al., p. 132–152, in C. S. Herrington and J. O. D. McGee (ed.), Diagnostic Molecular Pathology: a Practical Approach , (1992), by testing 328 cervical swab samples collected in Digene specimen transport medium (Digene Diagnostics, Silver Spring, Md.). We show excellent agreement between the two detection formats, with 92% concordance for HPV positivity (kappa = 0.78, P < 0.001). Nearly all of the discrepant HPV-positive samples resulted from weak signals and can be attributed to sampling error from specimens with low concentrations (<1 copy/μl) of HPV DNA. The primary advantage of the strip-based detection system is the ability to rapidly genotype HPVs present in genital samples with high sensitivity and specificity, minimizing the likelihood of misclassification.

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.36.10.3020-3027.1998

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 646

Metadata

Authors
Gravitt, P. E., Peyton, C. L., Apple, R. J., & Wheeler, C. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1998-10
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
3020-3027
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2151164686
Cited by
646
References
0
FWCI
16.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Genotyping of 27 Human Papillomavirus Types by Using L1 Consensus PCR Products by a Single-Hybridization, Reverse Line Blot Detection Method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.36.10.3020-3027.1998
The paper
Gravitt, P. E., Peyton, C. L., Apple, R. J., & Wheeler, C. M. (1998). Genotyping of 27 Human Papillomavirus Types by Using L1 Consensus PCR Products by a Single-Hybridization, Reverse Line Blot Detection Method. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.36.10.3020-3027.1998

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.