PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8911068

[Hepatitis viruses].

Y Tameda
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The existence of five kinds of hepatitis viruses such as hepatitis A, B, C, D and E has been convinced since 1967 when Blumberg discovered hepatitis B virus. The confirmation of virus which induces hepatitis has mainly depended on the measurement of antigen/antibody system. However, in order to grasp the entity of liver disease in more detail, analysis of virus nucleic acid is required. Especially, in case of patients who showed persistent infection of hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus, genetical analysis of hepatitis virus is required to make clear the liver disease, to determine the therapeutic method and to predict the prognosis. Recently, there are several reports which suggest the existence of new hepatitis virus that induces acute hepatitis or chronic hepatitis. Among these not determined viruses, GB agent is going to be recognized as a new hepatitis virus (HGV) which provoke hepatitis.

Explore related subjects

FlaviviridaeHepacivirusHepatitis B virusHepatitis Delta VirusHepatitis E virusHepatitis VirusesHepatovirusHumansEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Y Tameda. 1996. [Hepatitis viruses].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8911068/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Lessons from a multicentre study of the detectability of viral genomes based on a two-round quality control of GB virus C (GBV-C)/hepatitis G virus (HGV) polymerase chain reaction assay.

The aim of this study was to determine whether multicentre quality controls for the detectability of viral genomes could contribute to the improvement of diagnostic performance in the participating laboratories. The study was carried out during two successive rounds, during which 18 laboratories specialized in nucleic acid testing analyzed, through a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay, a common panel of GB virus C (GBV-C)/hepatitis G virus (HGV) RNA-positive and -negative samples. During the first round, the laboratories used either an 'in-house' PCR procedure or a partly standardized commercial test. After decoding the results of the first round, the procedures of the participating laboratories were compared in order to establish a consensus procedure deduced from those of the laboratories which provided the best results. During the second round, each participating laboratory could use the resulting consensus procedure, or its own procedure, or both. The results of this quality control study indicated that, whatever method used, even specialized and trained laboratories may give false-negative or false-positive results. The commercial assay did not guarantee a systematic high quality level of results. The striking heterogeneity of results observed among laboratories using the same commercial assay confirm that molecular biology methods need skilled technicians. The results of this quality control study suggest that full standardization of viral genome detection, including all steps of the procedure, is necessary and that the laboratories performing PCR should participate in repeated quality control studies, whatever technique is being used.

Flaviviridae↗
PubMed2000

Evaluation of two reverse transcription polymerase reaction assays (GEN ETI-K HGV RNA and LCx GBV-C assay) for the detection of GB virus C/hepatitis G virus RNA in clinical samples.

Our study evaluates the analytical performance of two amplification methods in the detection of GB Virus C/Hepatitis G Virus, GEN ETI-K HGV RNA (GEN) and the LCx GBV-C Assay (LCx). GB Virus C RNA was detected by at least one test in 58/315 samples (18.41%). Fifty-five samples (17.46%) were positive by the GEN method and 51 samples (16.19%) by the LCx method. The same rate of detection was found for 71 haemodialysis patients and 18 non-A non-E hepatitis. Method based differences in prevalence were observed for patient samples from the general population, 8/106 (7.55%) positive by GEN vs 7/106 (6.60%) by LCx; and HIV infected patients, 26/98 (26.53%) vs 23/98 (23.46%). For chronic type C hepatitis 10/22 (45.5%) were positive by both methods, with two samples discordant. Overall, discordance was observed for ten samples, with seven positive only by the GEN ETI-K HGV RNA, and three positive only by the LCx GBV-C Assay. An additional evaluation of serial samples, from chronic type C hepatitis patients under interferon treatment, revealed three samples which were positive only by the GEN method. Results were 100% concordant for patients under haemodialysis and for non-A non-E hepatitis, 95.9% in the HIV positive group, 90.9% in the chronic type C hepatitis group, and 97.1% in the general population group. Overall, a 97.2% of concordance was found between methods. Both tests have a similar diagnostic performance, though in our opinion, LCx GBV-C Assay better suits the requirements of a clinical microbiology diagnostic laboratory.

Flaviviridae↗