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 Detection of West Nile Virus RNA

Open access
Shi, Pei-Yong, Kauffman, Elizabeth B., Ren, Ping, Felton, Andy, Tai, Jennifer H., Dupuis, Alan P., Jones, Susan A., Ngo, Kiet A., Nicholas, David C., Maffei, Joseph, Ebel, Gregory D., Bernard, Kristen A., Kramer, Laura D.·2001·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

The recent outbreaks of West Nile virus (WNV) in the northeastern United States and other regions of the world have made it essential to develop an efficient protocol for surveillance of WNV. In the present report, we describe a high-throughput procedure that combines automated RNA extraction, amplification, and detection of WNV RNA. The procedure analyzed 96 samples in approximately 4.5 h. A robotic system, the ABI Prism 6700 Automated Nucleic Acid workstation, extracted RNA and set up reactions for real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR in a 96-well format. The robot extracted RNA with a recovery as efficient as that of a commercial RNA extraction kit. A real-time RT-PCR assay was used to detect and quantitate WNV RNA. Using in vitro transcribed RNA, we estimated the detection limit of the real-time RT-PCR to be approximately 40 copies of RNA. A standard RT-PCR assay was optimized to a sensitivity similar to that of the real-time RT-PCR. The standard assay can be reliably used to test a small number of samples or to confirm previous test results. Using internal primers in a nested RT-PCR, we increased the sensitivity by approximately 10-fold compared to that of the standard RT-PCR. The results of the study demonstrated for the first time that the use of an automated system for the purpose of large-scale viral RNA surveillance dramatically increased the speed and efficiency of sample throughput for diagnosis.

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.39.4.1264-1271.2001

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
Shi, P.-Y., Kauffman, E. B., Ren, P., Felton, A., Tai, J. H., Dupuis, A. P., Jones, S. A., Ngo, K. A., Nicholas, D. C., Maffei, J., Ebel, G. D., Bernard, K. A., & Kramer, L. D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2001-04
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
1264-1271
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2081988931
Cited by
224
References
2
FWCI
19.56
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 Detection of West Nile Virus RNA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.39.4.1264-1271.2001
The paper
Shi, P.-Y., Kauffman, E. B., Ren, P., Felton, A., Tai, J. H., Dupuis, A. P., Jones, S. A., Ngo, K. A., Nicholas, D. C., Maffei, J., Ebel, G. D., Bernard, K. A., & Kramer, L. D. (2001). High-Throughput Detection of West Nile Virus RNA. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.39.4.1264-1271.2001

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.