METHODS: One hundred and eighty-seven clinical bacteria isolates were tested with commercial phenotypic identification systems and 16S rDNA sequencing. Isolate identities determined using phenotypic identification systems and 16S rDNA sequencing were compared for similarity at genus and species level, with 16S rDNA sequencing as the reference method.
RESULTS: Phenotypic identification systems identified ~46% (86/187) of the isolates with identity similar to that identified using 16S rDNA sequencing. Approximately 39% (73/187) and ~15% (28/187) of the isolates showed different genus identity and could not be identified using the phenotypic identification systems, respectively. Both methods succeeded in determining the species identities of 55 isolates; however, only ~69% (38/55) of the isolates matched at species level. 16S rDNA sequencing could not determine the species of ~20% (37/187) of the isolates.
CONCLUSION: The 16S rDNA sequencing is a useful method over the phenotypic identification systems for the identification of rare and difficult to identify bacteria species. The 16S rDNA sequencing method, however, does have limitation for species-level identification of some bacteria highlighting the need for better bacterial pathogen identification tools.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Vero cells were inoculated with virus at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.1. Cell cultures were harvested over a time course and processed for transmission electron microscopic imaging.
RESULTS: The filopodia protrusions on cell periphery preceded virus entry. Additionally, sylvatic DENV infection was found spreading slower than the endemic DENV. Morphogenesis of both dengue ecotypes was alike but at different level of efficiency in the permissive cells.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first ultrastructural study on sylvatic DENV and this comparative study revealed the similarities and differences of cellular responses and morphogenesis of two dengue ecotypes in vitro. The study revealed the weaker infectivity of sylvatic DENV in the surrogate model of enzootic host, which supposed to support better replication of enzootic DENV than endemic DENV.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from 3 to 12 April 2020. The health belief model (HBM) was used to assess predictors of the intent to receive the vaccine and the WTP.
RESULTS: A total of 1,159 complete responses was received. The majority reported a definite intent to receive the vaccine (48.2%), followed by a probable intent (29.8%) and a possible intent (16.3%). Both items under the perceived benefits construct in the HBM, namely believe the vaccination decreases the chance of infection (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.19-5.26) and the vaccination makes them feel less worry (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.03-4.65), were found to have the highest significant odds of a definite intention to take the vaccine. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the amount that participants were willing to pay for a dose of COVID-19 vaccine was MYR$134.0 (SD±79.2) [US$30.66 ± 18.12]. Most of the participants were willing to pay an amount of MYR$100 [US$23] (28.9%) and MYR$50 [US$11.5] (27.2%) for the vaccine. The higher marginal WTP for the vaccine was influenced by no affordability barriers as well as by socio-economic factors, such as higher education levels, professional and managerial occupations and higher incomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate the utility of HBM constructs in understanding COVID-19 vaccination intention and WTP.