E-ISSN 2090-0503 | ISSN 1687-7497
 

Original Research 


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).


 
ARTICLE TOOLS
Abstract
PDF Fulltext
How to cite this articleHow to cite this article
Citation Tools
Related Records
 Articles by M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h
on Google
on Google Scholar

How to Cite this Article
Pubmed Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS. Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. (Bot.). 2006; 2(0): 13-17.


Web Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS. https://www.egyseb.net//?mno=186518 [Access: April 07, 2022].


AMA (American Medical Association) Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS. Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. (Bot.). 2006; 2(0): 13-17.



Vancouver/ICMJE Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS. Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. (Bot.). (2006), [cited April 07, 2022]; 2(0): 13-17.



Harvard Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h (2006) COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS. Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. (Bot.), 2 (0), 13-17.



Turabian Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h. 2006. COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS. THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (Botany), 2 (0), 13-17.



Chicago Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h. "COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS." THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (Botany) 2 (2006), 13-17.



MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h. "COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS." THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (Botany) 2.0 (2006), 13-17. Print.



APA (American Psychological Association) Style

M e r v a t M . F a t h - A l l a h (2006) COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEROLOGICAL METHODS FOR DETDCTION OF COWPEA MOSAIC COMOVIRUS. THE EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (Botany), 2 (0), 13-17.