BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2014 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2014 |Article ID 653014 |

Mei Jean Sue, Swee Keong Yeap, Abdul Rahman Omar, Sheau Wei Tan, "Application of PCR-ELISA in Molecular Diagnosis", BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 653014, 6 pages, 2014.

Application of PCR-ELISA in Molecular Diagnosis

Academic Editor: Nikolaos Siafakas
Received21 Feb 2014
Accepted12 May 2014
Published27 May 2014


Polymerase chain reaction-enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (PCR-ELISA) is an immunodetection method that can quantify PCR product directly after immobilization of biotinylated DNA on a microplate. This method, which detects nucleic acid instead of protein, is a much more sensitive method compared to conventional PCR method, with shorter analytical time and lower detection limit. Its high specificity and sensitivity, together with its semiquantitative ability, give it a huge potential to serve as a powerful detection tool in various industries such as medical, veterinary, and agricultural industries. With the recent advances in PCR-ELISA, it is envisaged that the assay is more widely recognized for its fast and sensitive detection limit which could improve overall diagnostic time and quality.

1. Introduction

In the early 90s, there was a sudden interest in DNA studies when Friedrich Miescher first identified and isolated DNA and when James D. Watson and Francis Crick first discovered the double helix structure of DNA in 1953. From then on, various molecular techniques and knowledge were introduced such as gel electrophoresis, DNA double helix structure, and the invention of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) by Kary Mullis in 1983, one of the most innovative and still widely used techniques in the field of  life sciences. Although PCR is a powerful tool, its applications cannot be fully expressed without a powerful detection tool.

Gel electrophoresis is one of the commonly used methods for the detection of an amplified PCR product but this method has a low detection limit and only allows the user to detect the presence or absence of a particular gene. Many detection methods and equipment have since been developed and amongst those commonly used is real-time PCR. In the late 1980s, there was a sudden boom of interest in the study of immunodetection of DNA. Various methods of immunodetection were published and amongst them is a study by Coutlée et al. [1] where they studied the immunodetection of DNA using biotinylated RNA probes. From then on, numerous studies on immunodetection of DNA using enzyme linked immunosorbent assay techniques were published, which subsequently lead to the introduction of polymerase chain reaction-enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (PCR-ELISA). This method combines both PCR and ELISA into a single analytical technique and its application is very much similar to ELISA except that this method allows the detection of nucleic acid instead of protein [2].

How does PCR-ELISA work? PCR-ELISA is an immunological method to quantify the PCR product directly after immobilization of biotinylated DNA on a microplate. The whole method involves 3 steps: amplification, immobilization, and detection. At the very beginning of the method, the gene of interest will be amplified through PCR in the presence of digoxigenin-11-dUTP (DIG-dUTP). DIG-labelled PCR products will then bind to specific oligonucleotide probes, labelled with biotin at their 5′ end. The next step involves immobilizing the gene of interest to the microplate. This is achievable with the presence of streptavidin coated on microplates and biotin on the 5′ end of the formed hybrid. Strong affinity of avidin-biotin interaction forms the avidin-biotin complex, thus binding only PCR products with the specific gene of interest to the microplate. All other nonspecific products will be washed off. After immobilization, detection of biotinylated DNA is required as the formation of these complexes cannot be detected through naked eyes. To do so, the amplicons can be detected using an anti-DIG-peroxidase conjugate through the substrate 2,2′-azino-di-3-ethylbenzthiazoline sulfonate (ABTS). These will develop a blue-green color reaction that is both visible and measured using a spectrophotometer (Figure 1) [3]. Another method of PCR-ELISA detection includes the use of fluorescein probe where detection includes the use of antifluorescein antibodies conjugated to horseradish peroxidase to detect the hybridized fluorescein-labelled oligonucleotide probe [4].

2. Comparisons of PCR-ELISA with Other PCR-Based Molecular Approaches

Since the introduction of this tool, various studies have been carried out to compare the performance of PCR-ELISA with other tools. Many agreed that the detection of DIG-labelled products by microwell capture hybridization assay makes PCR-ELISA a more sensitive tool than agarose gel electrophoresis analysis because the specific hybridization and enzymatic colourization increase the positive signal of biotin-labelled, probe-bound PCR products.

The PCR amplicons are analyzed using a colorimetric assay; thus not only is there reduced risk on the use of mutagen-staining materials and significant reduction of possible DNA contamination, but also it allows the method to serve as a semiquantitative tool [5]. As this detection uses gene-specific probes for detection, the specificity of the tool is very prominent [2, 6]. Not only can samples with that particular gene be detected, but also they can be quantified based on colour intensity. The presence of higher colour intensity indicates that more probe was bound to the specific gene sequence, forming a hybrid complex that was later bound by a peroxidase-conjugated anti-DIG antibody and the colorimetric peroxidase substrate ABTS, allowing detection. Whilst PCR-ELISA cannot provide an accurate estimation of the actual gene of interest that is present compared to real-time PCR (qPCR), it provides a quick summary of whether a particular substrate is high or low at a particular time, as colorimetric detection is in direct proportion to the number of the intended gene of interest.

Another main attraction of PCR-ELISA is that the assay allows large-scale screening to be done using only standard laboratory equipment, making it suitable to be used in clinical laboratories. This should serve as another incentive for laboratories with fewer resources as a survey done by Comley [7] showed that respondents do not turn to fully automated equipment for ELISA despite its availability, possibly due to the high costs of purchasing and maintaining the equipment. Last but not least, the overall analytical time of this assay is also much shorter than conventional PCR method, making it a promising tool for future uses especially when dealing with a large sample size.

With new discoveries and new invention, molecular biology tools need to be continuously improved and developed for faster and more efficient results. Each new technology that was developed has its pros and cons compared to other technologies. If the study is about an unknown gene, then conventional PCR using agarose gel detection would be the only available option as both qPCR and PCR-ELISA require the development of primers and/or probes that is difficult to achieve on a new target gene.

There were several articles comparing PCR-ELISA with qPCR for their high sensitivity ability. Menotti et al. [8] who did a comparison between PCR-ELISA and qPCR assay for the detection of Toxoplasma gondii, a parasitic protozoan that is responsible for causing life-threatening infections in immunocompromised hosts, found that the former method yields negative results in 15 samples that were clinically proven to suffer from the disease while the latter presented accurate results throughout the study. This was supported by various other authors (Table 1) whereby qPCR proved to be a more sensitive tool. Without the presence of any competitor so far in terms of sensitivity, qPCR is still an essential tool in research studies for detection. However, apart from this handicap, PCR-ELISA was found to be more cost effective as real-time PCR requires the use of costly fluorescent scoring system. If the purpose of the study does not require such high sensitivity as compared to qPCR, PCR-ELISA might just be the better option as it offers semiquantitative ability and adequate sensitivity at lower costs [9].

ComparisonConventional PCRPCR-ELISAqPCR

Equipment requiredStandard laboratory equipmentStandard laboratory equipmentRequires fluorescence detection instrument
Reagent costsLowModerateCostly
Detection limit1–10 ng/μL0.01 ng/μL0.25 pg/μL
Quantitative abilityNot quantitativeSemi-quantitativeQuantitative

Overall, the main factors that need to be considered while choosing the best method for their experimental design would be the pricing factor and level of sensitivity required. Several studies compared the use of qPCR, PCR-ELISA, and conventional PCR for the detection of poultry virus, infectious bursal disease virus, and the summary of the results is listed in Table 1 [2, 1014].

3. Applications of PCR-ELISA

With the aforementioned advantages of PCR-ELISA and its semiquantitative ability, a number of researchers propose the use of PCR-ELISA in a diverse range of fields, from basic detection and diagnosis to quality control and quantitative monitoring of infectious disease, food allergen detection, plant pathogens and biomarkers, with detection as its main application.

3.1. Detection and Diagnosis

Due to its high sensitivity and specificity, various studies on the use of PCR-ELISA as a detection and diagnostic method were proven successful. As rapid diagnosis in the medical field can affect the life and death of the public, the papers below are amongst some of the recent studies reported within the last 5 years on the detection of various diseases and pathogens in the medical diagnosis: identification of cancer cells [1517]; detection of the presence of Hepatitis A, B, C, and E types [14, 1821]; species detection and identification of dermatophyte species [22]; invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients [2325]; detection of poliovirus, enterovirus, and norovirus [26, 27]; and determination of blood group antigens for hemolytic disease of the newborn cases and polytransfused patients [28].

There are also a number of publications using PCR-ELISA in the food industry such as the detection of harmful food-borne pathogens such as Campylobacter sp., Salmonella [6, 2932], Listeria monocytogenes [33, 34], Escherichia coli [26, 35], Brucella melitensis [36], and Vibrio parahaemolyticus [2]. Not limiting the use of the method in the medical and food industries, the study of PCR-ELISA extends even to the veterinary industry. Amongst the studies are Leishmania parasite detection [37, 38] and the detection of various avian viruses in chickens [10, 39, 40]. Other detection studies that help detect the presence of plant pathogens [41, 42] include tomato spotted wilt [43], potato spindle tuber [12], prevalence of each phylogenetic group among the infected grapevine varieties [44], and plant viruses in woody plants [45]. PCR-ELISA can also detect the presence of harmful waterborne pathogens in both water supply and industrial cooling tower water [46, 47].

As PCR-ELISA is a sensitive tool that allows detection at very small concentration, there are suggestions to develop PCR-ELISA as an early detection system that allows preventive measures to be taken before the condition of the patient deteriorates or the situation worsens. The use of PCR-ELISA as an early warning system can be extended for the detection of latent symptoms of diseases or even gene expression studies through biomarkers. Some of the studies published include the development of PCR-ELISA as a replacement method for detection and validation of gene expression studies [9] and detection of four -thalassemia point mutations in Iranians using a PCR-ELISA genotyping system [5].

3.2. Quantitative Monitoring

Many studies also suggest the use of the assay for quantitative monitoring as a quick indication in the presence or absence of a particular substrate and its estimated concentration. It is a very crucial tool, especially for immunocompromised patients who are sensitive and susceptible to their environment, as it allows the determination of appropriate level of antiviral management. Amongst studies on the quantification monitoring using PCR-ELISA are evaluation and monitoring of cytomegalovirus infection in bone marrow transplant recipients [48], diagnostic value of the combined determination of telomerase activity in induced sputum, pleural effusion, and fibrobronchoscopic biopsy in lung cancer patients [49], and quantitative monitoring of Leishmania parasite in livestock [37].

4. Recent Advances in PCR-ELISA Technologies

Due to its ability to test multiple samples in a single run with shorter running time, a number of PCR-ELISA trial runs are currently in progress for use in medical diagnosis. With the success of these trial runs, it can be foreseen that the assay would be used in various quality control and medical diagnostic labs in the near future. Even with its high sensitivity and specificity, there are continuous attempts to improve the applications of PCR-ELISA in recent years. As PCR protocols are already established, the focal point for further improvements is on the immunoassay detection of DIG-labelled PCR products, such as the effects of streptavidin concentration on the microplate, addition of various PCR products to the microplate, or other solid-phase interfaces which require thorough optimization [6].

One of recent attempts to improve PCR-ELISA is to develop multiplexing ability, where several specific sequences are detected simultaneously, without any cross-reactivity. This method is designed as many felt that separate reactions for each species are both costly and time consuming compared to simultaneous detection. The key development for this procedure is to design probes that are highly specific for each of the species of interest but with the absence of cross-reactions [11, 13, 18, 5055].

Kobets et al. [37] developed an improved and optimized PCR-ELISA method that eliminates the need for a separate step of hybridization of the PCR product with labelled probes. Focusing on the detection and quantification of Leishmania parasites, these researchers use both DIG- and biotin-labelled primers to produce PCR products. These products were then attached to the streptavidin-coated plate before the products were detected using sandwich ELISA with anti-DIG antibodies. Not only does this method eliminate the hybridization step but also it eliminates a number of steps, including all the washing procedures in between each step. Amongst the procedures that were also eliminated are the denaturation step of PCR product prior to hybridization and the need for designing and attaching specific probe to the microplate. Overall, this design reduces the incubation and washing time, as well as reagent costs.

Others developed a technique that eliminates the need to denature and neutralize samples prior to hybridization compared to the conventional PCR-ELISA method. This method, known as asymmetric PCR-ELISA, utilizes asymmetric PCR amplification to amplify only one DNA strand in a double-stranded DNA template using excess primer for the strand targeted for amplification prior to detection. Nolasco et al. [41, 42] found that asymmetric PCR-ELISA increases the relative concentration of the target DNA species, making this method more sensitive than TaqMan detection method. The method also utilizes less dNTPs and DIG labels, which are very costly, by half and tenfold, respectively, without reducing its sensitivity.

No studies have yet been attempted to compare these few methods to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each method but it seems that the advances seem to be focusing on reducing the production costs and turn-round time whilst maintaining the assay’s sensitivity and specificity.

5. Summary

Overall, PCR-ELISA method (i) is much more sensitive by about 100-fold than conventional PCR method, (ii) is with short analytical testing time, allowing faster result output, (iii) allows multiple sample testing with the use of gene-specific probes, (iv) is able to do quantitative and qualitative analyses, (v) reduces risk of contamination, (vi) omits the use of mutagen-staining materials, and (vii) is an easy-to-use method as it only requires the use of basic lab equipment. By offering faster diagnostic time and high sensitivity, there is high potential for PCR-ELISA to serve as a powerful detection tool in all sectors, from medical sector to both food and agriculture sectors. Early detection allows earlier management intervention, allowing more lives to be saved, overcoming food shortages problem indirectly, and preventing contaminated food products from reaching the consumers. Since a number of trial runs on the tool are already ongoing, one can hope that the diagnostic time and quality will be further improved in the near future.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.


This work was supported by ScienceFund, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysia, Project no. 02-01-04-SF1450.


  1. F. Coutlée, L. Bobo, K. Mayur, R. H. Yolken, and R. P. Viscidi, “Immunodetection of DNA with biotinylated RNA probes: a study of reactivity of a monoclonal antibody to DNA-RNA hybrids,” Analytical Biochemistry, vol. 181, no. 1, pp. 96–105, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  2. A. di Pinto, V. Terio, P. di Pinto, V. Colao, and G. Tantillo, “Detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in shellfish using polymerase chain reaction-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,” Letters in Applied Microbiology, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 494–498, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. Pislak, M. Ocepek, J. Zabavnik-Piano, and M. Pogacnik, “PCR-ELISA as the method for improving the diagnosis of paratuberculosis,” in ProceedIngs of the 7th International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis, pp. 251–254, Bilbao, Spain, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  4. L. I. Gomes, L. H. D. S. Marques, M. J. Enk, M. C. de Oliveira, P. M. Z. Coelho, and A. Rabello, “Development and evaluation of a sensitive PCR-ELISA system for detection of Schistosoma infection in feces,” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 4, no. 4, article e664, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. P. Gill, M. Forouzandeh, N. Eshraghi, M. Ghalami, M. Safa, and M. R. Noori-Daloii, “Detection of four β-thalassemia point mutations in Iranians using a PCR-ELISA genotyping system,” Molecular and Cellular Probes, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 103–109, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. S. L. Mousavi, J. Salimiyan, A. K. Rahgerdi, J. Amani, S. Nazarian, and H. Ardestani, “A rapid and specific PCR-ELISA for detecting Salmonella typhi,” Iranian Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 1, pp. 113–119, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  7. J. Comley, “ELISA assays: recent innovations take analyte detection to new levels,” Drug Discovery World, 2012, View at: Google Scholar
  8. J. Menotti, Y. J. F. Garin, P. Thulliez et al., “Evaluation of a new 5′-nuclease real-time PCR assay targeting the Toxoplasma gondii AF146527 genomic repeat,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 363–368, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. F. A. Palermo, P. Cocci, M. Angeletti, A. Polzonetti-Magni, and G. Mosconi, “PCR-ELISA detection of estrogen receptor β mRNA expression and plasma vitellogenin induction in juvenile sole (Solea solea) exposed to waterborne 4-nonylphenol,” Chemosphere, vol. 86, no. 9, pp. 919–925, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. H. H. Aini, A. R. Omar, M. Hair-Bejo, and I. Aini, “Comparison of Sybr Green I, ELISA and conventional agarose gel-based PCR in the detection of infectious bursal disease virus,” Microbiological Research, vol. 163, no. 5, pp. 556–563, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. L. Cabrera, J. de Witte, B. Victor et al., “Specific detection and identification of African trypanosomes in bovine peripheral blood by means of a PCR-ELISA assay,” Veterinary Parasitology, vol. 164, no. 2–4, pp. 111–117, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. A. M. Shamloul and A. Hadidi, “Sensitive detection of potato spindle tuber and temperate fruit tree viroids by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction-probe capture hybridization,” Journal of Virological Methods, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 145–155, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. M. Musiani, S. Venturoli, G. Gallinella, and M. Zerbini, “Qualitative PCR-ELISA protocol for the detection and typing of viral genomes,” Nature Protocols, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 2502–2510, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. D. J. Seo, H. Tahk, K. B. Lee et al., “Detecting hepatitis E virus with a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,” Food and Environmental Virology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 14–20, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. D. T. Cosan, A. Soyocak, A. Basaran, I. Degirmenci, H. V. Gunes, and F. M. Sahin, “Effects of various agents on DNA fragmentation and telomerase enzyme activities in adenocarcinoma cell lines,” Molecular Biology Reports, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2463–2469, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. N. Raji, M. Sadeghizadeh, K. N. Tafreshi, and E. Jahanzad, “Detection of human papillomavirus 18 in cervical cancer samples using PCR-ELISA (DIAPOPS),” Iranian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 177–182, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  17. O. Lungu, X. W. Sun, T. C. Wright Jr., A. Ferenczy, R. M. Richart, and S. Silverstein, “A polymerase chain reaction-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method for detecting human papillomavirus in cervical carcinomas and high-grade cervical cancer precursors,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 337–342, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. H. Tahk, M. H. Lee, K. B. Lee, D. S. Cheon, and C. Choi, “Development of duplex RT-PCR-ELISA for the simultaneous detection of hepatitis A virus and hepatitis E virus,” Journal of Virological Methods, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 137–140, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. H. Weijia, Z. Jianfeng, G. Xingcheng, and Y. Weiwei, “Evaluation of PCR-ELISA for detection of HBV-DNA in semen,” Chinese Journal of Andrology, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 18–20, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  20. F. B. Wu, H. Q. Ouyan, X. Y. Tang, and Z. X. Zhou, “Double-antigen sandwich time-resolved immunofluorometric assay for the detection of anti-hepatitis C virus total antibodies with improved specificity and sensitivity,” Journal of Medical Microbiology, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 947–953, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. H. Tahk, K. B. Lee, M. H. Lee, D. J. Seo, D. S. Cheon, and C. Choi, “Development of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of hepatitis A virus in vegetables,” Food Control, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 210–214, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. B. Beifuss, G. Bezold, P. Gottlöber et al., “Direct detection of five common dermatophyte species in clinical samples using a rapid and sensitive 24-h PCR-ELISA technique open to protocol transfer,” Mycoses, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 137–145, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. I. Hadrich, C. Mary, F. Makni et al., “Comparison of PCR-ELISA and real-time PCR for invasive aspergillosis diagnosis in patients with hematological malignancies,” Medical Mycology, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 489–494, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. P. Badiee, P. Kordbacheh, A. Alborzi et al., “Study on invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients to present a suitable early diagnostic procedure,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 97–102, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. P. Badiee, P. Kordbacheh, A. Alborzi, M. Zakernia, and P. Haddadi, “Early detection of systemic Candidiasis in the whole blood of patients with hematologic malignancies,” Japanese Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  26. J. Madic, C. Lecureuil, F. Dilasser et al., “Screening of food raw materials for the presence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O91:H21,” Letters in Applied Microbiology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 447–451, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. K. Park, K. Lee, K. Baek et al., “Application of a diagnostic method using reverse transcription-PCR ELISA for the diagnosis of enteroviral infections,” Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 594–600, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. M. St-Louis, “PCR-ELISA for high-throughput blood group genotyping,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 496, pp. 3–13, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. B. E. Gillespie, A. G. Mathew, F. A. Draughon, B. M. Jayarao, and S. P. Oliver, “Detection of Salmonella enterica somatic groups C1 and E1 by PCR-enzyme-linked Iimmunosorbent assay,” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 2367–2370, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  30. Y. Hong, M. E. Berrang, T. Liu et al., “Rapid detection of Campylobacter coli, C. jejuni, and Salmonella enterica on poultry carcasses by using PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 3492–3499, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  31. C. Metzger-Boddien, A. Bostel, and J. Kehle, “AnDiaTec Salmonella sp. PCR-ELISA for analysis of food samples,” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 1585–1590, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  32. S. Perelle, F. Dilasser, B. Malorny, J. Grout, J. Hoorfar, and P. Fach, “Comparison of PCR-ELISA and LightCycler real-time PCR assays for detecting Salmonella spp. in milk and meat samples,” Molecular and Cellular Probes, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 409–420, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. H. J. Kim and J. C. Cho, “Rapid and sensitive detection of Listeria monocytogenes using a PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,” Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1858–1861, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. W. Cao, N. Wang, X. Wang, H. Liu, and Y. Guo, “Study on rapid detection techniques of PCR-ELISA for Listeria monocytogenes,” Journal of Hygiene Research, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 662–666, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  35. P. Daly, T. Collier, and S. Doyle, “PCR-ELISA detection of Escherichia coli in milk,” Letters in Applied Microbiology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 222–226, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. V. K. Gupta, J. Vohra, V. S. Vihan, and R. Kumari, “PCR-ELISA for diagnosis of brucellosis in goat milk,” Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 78, no. 8, pp. 797–800, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  37. T. Kobets, J. Badalová, I. Grekov, H. Havelková, M. Svobodová, and M. Lipoldová, “Leishmania parasite detection and quantification using PCR-ELISA,” Nature Protocols, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1074–1080, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. A. Alborzi, B. Pourabbas, F. Shahian, J. Mardaneh, G. R. Pouladfar, and M. Ziyaeyan, “Detection of Leishmania infantum kinetoplast DNA in the whole blood of asymptomatic individuals by PCR-ELISA and comparison with other infection markers in endemic areas, southern Iran,” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 839–842, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  39. S. F. Phong, M. Hair-Bejo, A. R. Omar, and I. Aini, “Sequence analysis of Malaysian infectious bursal disease virus isolate and the use of reverse transcriptase nested polymerase chain reaction enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of VP2 hypervariable region,” Avian Diseases, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 154–162, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  40. D. Barlič-Maganja, O. Zorman-Rojs, and J. Grom, “Detection of infectious bursal disease virus in different lymphoid organs by single-step reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and microplate hybridization assay,” Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 243–246, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  41. G. Nolasco, Z. Sequeira, C. Soares, A. Mansinho, A. M. Bailey, and C. L. Niblett, “Asymmetric PCR ELISA: increased sensitivity and reduced costs for the detection of plant viruses,” European Journal of Plant Pathology, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 293–298, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. G. Nolasco, C. Santos, G. Silva, and F. Fonseca, “Development of an asymmetric PCR-ELISA typing method for citrus tristeza virus based on the coat protein gene,” Journal of Virological Methods, vol. 155, no. 2, pp. 97–108, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. R. Weekes, I. Barker, and K. R. Wood, “An RT-PCR test for the detection of tomato spotted wilt tospovirus incorporating immunocapture and colorimetric estimation,” Journal of Phytopathology, vol. 144, no. 11-12, pp. 575–580, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. P. Gouveia, M. T. Santos, J. E. Eiras-Dias, and G. Nolasco, “Five phylogenetic groups identified in the coat protein gene of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 obtained from Portuguese grapevine varieties,” Archives of Virology, vol. 156, no. 3, pp. 413–420, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. A. Rowhani, L. Biardi, G. Routh, S. D. Daubert, and D. A. Golino, “Development of a sensitive colorimetric-PCR assay for detection of viruses in woody plants,” Plant Disease, vol. 82, no. 8, pp. 880–884, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  46. M. Soheili, M. R. Nejadmoghaddam, M. Babashamsi, J. Ghasemi, and M. Jeddi Tehrani, “Detection of Legionella pneumophila by PCR-ELISA method in industrial cooling tower water,” Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 10, no. 22, pp. 4015–4021, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  47. J. T. Kuo, C. Y. Cheng, H. H. Huang, C. F. Tsao, and Y. C. Chung, “A rapid method for the detection of representative coliforms in water samples: polymerase chain reaction-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (PCR-ELISA),” Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 237–244, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. M. Ziyaeyan, F. Sabahi, A. Alborzi et al., “Quantification of human cytomegalovirus DNA by a new capture hybrid polymerase chain reaction enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells of bone marrow transplant recipients,” Experimental and Clinical Transplantation, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 294–300, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  49. H. Li, F. Hua, C. Zhao, G. Liu, and Q. Zhou, “Diagnotic value of the combined determination of telomerase activity in induced sputum, pleural effusion and fiberobronchoscopic biopsy samples in lung cancer,” Chinese Journal of Lung Cancer, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 128–131, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. A. Avlami, S. Bekris, G. Ganteris et al., “Detection of metallo-β-lactamase genes in clinical specimens by a commercial multiplex PCR system,” Journal of Microbiological Methods, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 185–187, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. W. Puppe, J. A. I. Weigl, G. Aron et al., “Evaluation of a multiplex reverse transcriptase PCR ELISA for the detection of nine respiratory tract pathogens,” Journal of Clinical Virology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 165–174, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. H. Schützle, J. Weigl, W. Puppe, J. Forster, and R. Berner, “Diagnostic performance of a rapid antigen test for RSV in comparison with a 19-valent multiplex RT-PCR ELISA in children with acute respiratory tract infections,” European Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 167, no. 7, pp. 745–749, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. B. Chaharaein, A. R. Omar, I. Aini, K. Yusoff, and S. S. Hassan, “Detection of H5, H7 and H9 subtypes of avian influenza viruses by multiplex reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction,” Microbiological Research, vol. 164, no. 2, pp. 174–179, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. N. Santos, S. Honma, M. D. C. S. T. Timenetsky et al., “Development of a microtiter plate hybridization-based PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for identification of clinically relevant human group A rotavirus G and P genotypes,” Journal of Clinical Microbiology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 462–469, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. R. S. W. Tsang, C. M. Tsai, A. M. Henderson et al., “Immunochemical studies and genetic background of two Neisseria meningitidis isolates expressing unusual capsule polysaccharide antigens with specificities of both serogroup Y and W135,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 229–234, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2014 Mei Jean Sue et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.