Antibodies, Assay Kits, Biology Cells, Brd4 Antibody, cDNA, Clia Kits, Ctip Antibody, Culture Cells, DNA, DNA Templates, DNA Testing, Elisa Kits, Equipments, Exosomes, Gels, Irak3 Antibody, Medium & Serums, Mmp14 Antibody, Nmnat1 Antibody, Nse Antibody, Otx2 Antibody, Panel, Particles, PCR, Peptides, Reagents, Recombinant Proteins, Rfp Antibody, Ria Kits, Sod2 Antibody, Stat5 Antibody, Trpa1 Antibody, Vector & Virus, Vitronectin Antibody
Comparison of PanBio dengue duo enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and MRL dengue fever virus immunoglobulin M capture ELISA for diagnosis of dengue virus infections in Southeast Asia
The performances of the MRL dengue fever virus immunoglobulin M (IgM) capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the PanBio Dengue Duo IgM capture and IgG capture ELISA were compared. Eighty sera from patients with dengue virus infections, 24 sera from patients with Japanese encephalitis (JE), and 78 sera from patients with nonflavivirus infections, such as malaria, typhoid, leptospirosis, and scrub typhus, were used. The MRL test showed superior sensitivity for dengue virus infections (94 versus 89%), while the PanBio test showed superior specificity for JE (79 versus 25%) and other infections (100 versus 91%).
The PanBio ELISA showed better overall performance, as assessed by the sum of sensitivity and specificity (F value). When dengue virus and nonflavivirus infections were compared, F values of 189 and 185 were obtained for the PanBio and MRL tests, respectively, while when dengue virus infections and JE were compared, F values of 168 and 119 were obtained.
The results obtained with individual sera in the PanBio and MRL IgM ELISAs showed good correlation, but this analysis revealed that the cutoff value of the MRL test was set well below that of the PanBio test. Comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the tests at different cutoff values (receiver-operator analysis) revealed that the MRL and PanBio IgM ELISAs performed similarly in distinguishing dengue virus from nonflavivirus infections, although the PanBio IgM ELISA showed significantly better distinction between dengue virus infections and JE. The implications of these findings for the laboratory diagnosis of dengue are discussed.
Evaluation of the MRL diagnostics dengue fever virus IgM capture ELISA and the PanBio Rapid Immunochromatographic Test for diagnosis of dengue fever in Jamaica.
We evaluated two new commercial dengue diagnostic tests, the MRL Diagnostics Dengue Fever Virus IgM Capture ELISA and the PanBio Rapid Immunochromatographic Test, on serum samples collected during a dengue epidemic in Jamaica. The MRL ELISA method correctly identified 98% (78 of 80) of the samples as dengue positive, while the PanBio test identified 100% (80 of 80). Both tests were 100% (20 samples of 20) specific.
Impact of animal saliva on the performance of rapid antigen tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2
SARS-CoV-2 infects several animal species and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) may even show (as in humans) enhanced inter- and intra-species transmission rates. We correlated sensitivity data of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) to viral RNA genome equivalents analyzed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).
Further, we checked their suitability for testing animals by assessing saliva and VOC effects. Viral loads up to 2 logs (RNA copy number) under the hypothetical SARS-CoV-2 infectivity threshold were detected by most analyzed RATs. However, while saliva from various animal species showed generally no adverse effects on the RATs’ analytical sensitivities, the detection of VOCs B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 was in some RATs inferior to non-VOC viruses.
Accuracy of rapid antigen detection test for nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with RT-PCR and viral culture for SARS-CoV-2 detection
Introduction: Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are convenient tools for detecting the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in clinics, and testing using saliva samples could decrease the risk of infection during sample collection. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD for testing of nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples in comparison with the RT-PCR tests and viral culture for detecting viable virus.
Methods: One hundred seventeen nasopharyngeal swab specimens and 73 saliva samples with positive results on RT-PCR were used. Residual samples were assayed using a commercially available RAD test immediately, and its positivity was determined at various time points during the clinical course. The concordance between 54 nasopharyngeal swab samples and saliva samples that were collected simultaneously was determined. Viral culture was performed on 117 samples and compared with the results of the RAD test.
Results: The positive rate of RAD test using saliva samples was low throughout the clinical course. Poor concordance was observed between nasopharyngeal swab specimens and saliva samples (75.9%, kappa coefficient 0.310). However, a substantially high concordance between the RAD test and viral culture was observed in both nasopharyngeal swab specimens (86.8%, kappa coefficient 0.680) and saliva samples (95.1%, kappa coefficient 0.643).
Conclusions: The sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RAD test was insufficient, particularly for saliva samples. However, a substantially high concordance with viral culture suggests its potential utility as an auxiliary test for estimating SARS-CoV-2 viability.
Evaluation of rapid antigen tests based on saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2
Rapid identification and isolation of with SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals is crucial. Recent studies have shown that RT-PCR from self-collected saliva is a suitable alternative to nasopharyngeal swab. A disadvantage of RT-PCR resulting in a long time until result which may be problematic.
To address this problem, in this study a rapid antigen testCE-certified for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 using saliva (COVID-19 Antigen Test Cassette (hypersensitive colloidal gold) was evaluated. An overall sensitivity of saliva rapid antigen test of 44.4% and a specificity of 100% compared with RT-PCR-results from gargle solution as gold standard was shown. The data suggests that rapid antigen tests based on saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are not a no reliable substitute for RT-PCR. This article is protected by copyright.
A saliva-based rapid test to quantify the infectious subclinical malaria parasite reservoir
A large proportion of ongoing malaria parasite transmission is attributed to low-density subclinical infections not readily detected by available rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) or microscopy. Plasmodium falciparum gametocyte carriage is subclinical, but gametocytemic individuals comprise the parasite reservoir that leads to infection of mosquitoes and local transmission. Effective detection and quantification of these carriers can help advance malaria elimination strategies.
However, no point-of-need (PON) RDTs for gametocyte detection exist, much less one that can perform noninvasive sampling of saliva outside a clinical setting. Here, we report on the discovery of 35 parasite markers from which we selected a single candidate for use in a PON RDT. We performed a cross-sectional, multi-omics study of saliva from 364 children with subclinical infection in Cameroon and Zambia and produced a prototype saliva-based PON lateral flow immunoassay test for P. falciparum gametocyte carriers. The test is capable of identifying submicroscopic carriage in both clinical and nonclinical settings and is compatible with archived saliva samples.
 anti-AXL |
|||
| YF-PA23279 | Abfrontier | 50 ul | EUR 400.8 |
|
Description: Mouse polyclonal to AXL |
|||
 anti- AXL antibody |
|||
| FNab00754 | FN Test | 100µg | EUR 606.3 |
|
Description: Antibody raised against AXL |
|||
 Anti-AXL Antibody |
|||
| A00226-2 | BosterBio | 100ug/vial | EUR 352.8 |
) anti-AXL (1B3A2) |
|||
| LF-MA30204 | Abfrontier | 100 ul | EUR 510 |
|
Description: Mouse Monoclonal to AXL |
|||
) anti-AXL (7E10) |
|||
| LF-MA30273 | Abfrontier | 100 ul | EUR 583.2 |
|
Description: Mouse Monoclonal to AXL |
|||
 Anti-AXL antibody |
|||
| PAab00754 | Lifescience Market | 100 ug | EUR 426 |
 Anti-Axl Antibody |
|||
| STJ500198 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µg | EUR 571.2 |
Anti-AXL antibody |
|||
| STJ119885 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µl | EUR 332.4 |
|
Description: The protein encoded by this gene is a member of the Tyro3-Axl-Mer (TAM) receptor tyrosine kinase subfamily. The encoded protein possesses an extracellular domain which is composed of two immunoglobulin-like motifs at the N-terminal, followed by two fibronectin type-III motifs. It transduces signals from the extracellular matrix into the cytoplasm by binding to the vitamin K-dependent protein growth arrest-specific 6 (Gas6). This gene may be involved in several cellular functions including growth, migration, aggregation and anti-inflammation in multiple cell types. Alternative splicing results in multiple transcript variants of this gene. |
|||
Anti-AXL antibody |
|||
| STJ22748 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µl | EUR 332.4 |
|
Description: The protein encoded by this gene is a member of the Tyro3-Axl-Mer (TAM) receptor tyrosine kinase subfamily. The encoded protein possesses an extracellular domain which is composed of two immunoglobulin-like motifs at the N-terminal, followed by two fibronectin type-III motifs. It transduces signals from the extracellular matrix into the cytoplasm by binding to the vitamin K-dependent protein growth arrest-specific 6 (Gas6). This gene may be involved in several cellular functions including growth, migration, aggregation and anti-inflammation in multiple cell types. Alternative splicing results in multiple transcript variants of this gene. |
|||
 Anti-Axl antibody |
|||
| STJ97643 | St John's Laboratory | 200 µl | EUR 236.4 |
|
Description: Rabbit polyclonal to Axl. |
|||
Anti-Axl antibody |
|||
| STJ91791 | St John's Laboratory | 200 µl | EUR 236.4 |
|
Description: Rabbit polyclonal to Axl. |
|||
Anti-Axl antibody |
|||
| STJ97856 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µl | EUR 280.8 |
|
Description: Mouse monoclonal to Axl. |
|||
Anti-Axl antibody |
|||
| STJ97857 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µl | EUR 280.8 |
|
Description: Mouse monoclonal to Axl. |
|||
) Anti-AXL (6C8) |
|||
| YF-MA10084 | Abfrontier | 100 ug | EUR 435.6 |
|
Description: Mouse monoclonal to AXL |
|||
) Anti-AXL (6G1) |
|||
| YF-MA10085 | Abfrontier | 100 ug | EUR 435.6 |
|
Description: Mouse monoclonal to AXL |
|||
) Anti-Axl (2C10) |
|||
| YF-MA12092 | Abfrontier | 100 ug | EUR 435.6 |
|
Description: Mouse monoclonal to Axl |
|||
 Rabbit Polyclonal antibody Anti-CRBN |
|||
| Anti-CRBN | ImmunoStep | 50 µg | EUR 418.8 |
 Anti-Axl Antibody BIOTIN |
|||
| STJ500199 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µg | EUR 703.2 |
 Anti-Axl Antibody FITC |
|||
| STJ500200 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µg | EUR 703.2 |
 Rabbit Anti-Mouse AXL protein IgG-Biotinylated |
|||
| AXL11-BTN | Alpha Diagnostics | 100 ul | EUR 634.8 |
 Mouse AXL shRNA Plasmid |
|||
| 20-abx973661 | Abbexa |
|
|
 Mouse AXL ELISA Kit |
|||
| LF-EK50868 | Abfrontier | 1×96T | EUR 777.6 |
 Polyclonal Rabbit Anti-AXL antibody |
|||
| APR05486G | Leading Biology | 0.1ml | EUR 580.8 |
|
Description: A polyclonal antibody raised in Rabbit that recognizes and binds to Human Rabbit Anti-AXL . This antibody is tested and proven to work in the following applications: |
|||
 Anti-Phospho-AXL-Y702 antibody |
|||
| STJ11100989 | St John's Laboratory | 100 µl | EUR 471.6 |
|
Description: The protein encoded by this gene is a member of the Tyro3-Axl-Mer (TAM) receptor tyrosine kinase subfamily. The encoded protein possesses an extracellular domain which is composed of two immunoglobulin-like motifs at the N-terminal, followed by two fibronectin type-III motifs. It transduces signals from the extracellular matrix into the cytoplasm by binding to the vitamin K-dependent protein growth arrest-specific 6 (Gas6). This gene may be involved in several cellular functions including growth, migration, aggregation and anti-inflammation in multiple cell types. Alternative splicing results in multiple transcript variants of this gene. |
|||