pone.0298805.s001.tif (1.37 MB)
Pros and cons of different methods used for arbovirus surveillance.
figure
posted on 2024-02-23, 18:53 authored by Dongmin Kim, Terry J. DeBriere, Bradley H. Eastmond, Abdullah A. Alomar, Ozlem Yaren, Jacquelyn McCarter, Kevin M. Bradley, Steven A. Benner, Barry W. Alto, Nathan D. Burkett-CadenaPros and cons of different methods used for arbovirus surveillance.
History
Usage metrics
Categories
Keywords
xlink "> arthropodwithin 45 minutesvector control responsessentinel chicken serosurveillancepermitting arbovirus monitoringnegative samples basedmonitor arbovirus transmissionmediated isothermal amplificationleast 48 hoursfeed directly uponelicits infectious mosquitoesearly warning valueborne pathogen surveillancemosquito pool screeninglaborious mosquito identificationwithout rna extractioninfectious mosquito salivamosquito salivaborne viruseswest nilevirus isolationthermal treatmentrisk assessmentreliably visualizedreagent mixrapid detectionpractical usepathogenic arbovirusesmajor causesincome countriesfluorescence intensityfield temperaturesfield applicationexpectorate virusesendemic lowdisplaced probesdetectable rapidlydengue virusescurrently usedantibody testinganimal diseaseadditional sites
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC