{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019626168224299065, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.530487804878049, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Four Methods Using Throat Swabs To Confirm Rubella Virus Infection

ABSTRACT Laboratory tests are essential for confirming sporadic cases and outbreaks of rubella. Detection of rubella virus is often necessary to confirm rubella cases and to identify specimens to be used to characterize wild-type rubella viruses. The sensitivities of four methods for detecting rubella virus infection using throat swabs, which had been collected in Henan and Anhui provinces in China, were evaluated. The methods used were reverse transcription (RT)-PCR followed by Southern hybridization using RNA extracted directly from clinical specimens, virus growth in tissue culture followed by virus detection by RT-PCR, low-background immunofluorescence in infected tissue culture cells using monoclonal antibodies to the structural proteins of rubella virus, and a replicon-based method of detecting infectious virus. Among these four methods, direct RT-PCR followed by hybridization was the most sensitive method; the replicon-based method was the least difficult to perform.