TY - JOUR
T1 - Recent advances in diagnostic approaches for epstein–barr virus
AU - Abusalah, Mai Abdel Haleem
AU - Gan, Siew Hua
AU - Al‐hatamleh, Mohammad A.I.
AU - Irekeola, Ahmad Adebayo
AU - Shueb, Rafidah Hanim
AU - Yean, Chan Yean
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded by Bridging Grant from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), grant number [304/PPSP/6316129], and the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) by Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) Malaysia, grant number [203/PPSP/6171209].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/3
Y1 - 2020/3
N2 - Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is the causative agent of many diseases including infectious mononucleosis (IM), and it is associated with different subtypes of lymphoma, sarcoma and carcinoma such as Hodgkinʹs lymphoma, non‐Hodgkinʹs lymphoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and gastric carcinoma. With the advent of improved laboratory tests for EBV, a timelier and accurate diagnosis could be made to aid better prognosis and effective treatment. For histopathological lesions, the in situ hybridization (ISH) of EBV‐encoded RNA (EBER) in biopsy tissues remains the gold standard for detecting EBV. Methods such as the heterophile antibody test, immunofluorescence assays, enzyme immunoassays, Western blot, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are also employed in the detection of EBV in different types of samples. The determination of EBV viral load using PCR, however, is gaining more prominence in the diagnosis of EBV-associated diseases. Given the challenge of false positive/negative results that are sometimes experienced during the detection of EBV, variability in results from different laboratories, and the impact of factors such as sample type and the immunological status of patients from whom samples are collected, the need to critically examine these present methods is invaluable. This review thus presents current advances in the detection of EBV, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques. In addition, fundamental virological concepts are highlighted to enhance the greater understanding, the proper application, and the interpretation of EBV tests.
AB - Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is the causative agent of many diseases including infectious mononucleosis (IM), and it is associated with different subtypes of lymphoma, sarcoma and carcinoma such as Hodgkinʹs lymphoma, non‐Hodgkinʹs lymphoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and gastric carcinoma. With the advent of improved laboratory tests for EBV, a timelier and accurate diagnosis could be made to aid better prognosis and effective treatment. For histopathological lesions, the in situ hybridization (ISH) of EBV‐encoded RNA (EBER) in biopsy tissues remains the gold standard for detecting EBV. Methods such as the heterophile antibody test, immunofluorescence assays, enzyme immunoassays, Western blot, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are also employed in the detection of EBV in different types of samples. The determination of EBV viral load using PCR, however, is gaining more prominence in the diagnosis of EBV-associated diseases. Given the challenge of false positive/negative results that are sometimes experienced during the detection of EBV, variability in results from different laboratories, and the impact of factors such as sample type and the immunological status of patients from whom samples are collected, the need to critically examine these present methods is invaluable. This review thus presents current advances in the detection of EBV, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques. In addition, fundamental virological concepts are highlighted to enhance the greater understanding, the proper application, and the interpretation of EBV tests.
KW - Barr virus
KW - Carcinoma
KW - Epstein
KW - Exosome
KW - Laboratory diagnostic techniques
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082332655&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/pathogens9030226
DO - 10.3390/pathogens9030226
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 32197545
AN - SCOPUS:85082332655
VL - 9
JO - Pathogens
JF - Pathogens
SN - 2076-0817
IS - 3
M1 - 226
ER -