METHODS AND RESULTS: Total nucleic acids were extracted from leaf samples harvested from frond 20 of seven Dura × Pisifera (D × P) African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) aged between 13 and 21 years old collected from local plantations. The nucleic acids were fractionated using 5% non-denaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) before being subjected to detection by reverse transcribed polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The PCR products were cloned into a plasmid vector and the sequence of the clones was analyzed. CCCVd variants were quantified using real-time qPCR assay with CCCVd specific primers. Sixteen randomly selected clones of (OP246) had an arbitrary 100% identity with CCCVdOP246 (GeneBank Accession No: HQ608513). Meanwhile, four clones had >93% similarity with several minor sequence variations forming variants of OP234, OP235, OP251 and OP279.
CONCLUSION: The OS symptoms observed in the field were characterized into three categories based on the size and morphology of the orange spots on the affected fronds. In addition, there was no direct correlation between disease severity and the accumulation of CCCVd variants in oil palm. This finding is the first report describing the sequence variation of the CCCVd RNA and symptom variation in OS oil palm field samples.
METHODS: In the current project, we have described two extraction-free reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by using E gene and RdRp gene as the targets.
RESULTS: Here, results showed that reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays with 88.4% sensitive (95% CI: 74.9-96.1%) and 67.4% sensitive (95% CI: 51.5-80.9%) for E gene and RdRp gene, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Without the need of RNA purification, our developed RT-LAMP assays for direct detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swab samples could be turned into alternatives to qRT-PCR for rapid screening.
METHODS: A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed at Najran University and provided to the participants for data collection. The data collected included information on risk perception and incorporation of measures for protection against COVID-19 to gauge the attitude of dentists during this period. Also, clinical implementation of various protective measures was reviewed.
RESULTS: Of the n = 322 dentists that answered the questions, 50% were general dentists and 28.9% were dentists working at specialist clinics, while the remaining 21.1% of dentists were employed in academic institutions. Among the newer additions to the clinic, 36.3% of dentists answered that they had added atomizers to their practices, followed by 26.4% of dentists that had incorporated the use of UV lamps for sterilization. We found that 18.9% dentists were using HEPA filters in their clinics, while 9.9% of dentists were making use of fumigation devices to control the risk of infection. One-way ANOVA was also carried out to demonstrate that there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.049) between groups of dentists utilizing HEPA filters, UV lamps, atomizers, and fumigation devices to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV2 across their workplaces.
CONCLUSION: Dentists are aware of recently updated knowledge about the modes of transmission of COVID-19 and the recommended infection control measures in dental settings. A better understanding of the situation and methods to prevent it will ensure that the dental community is able to provide healthcare services to patients during the pandemic.