Identification of Arboviruses and Certain Rodent-Borne Viruses: Reevaluation of the Paradigm
2001

Reevaluating Virus Detection Methods

Commentary

Author Information

Author(s): Charles H. Calisher, Carol D. Blair, Michael D. Bowen, Jordi Casals, Michael A. Drebot, Eric A. Henchal, Nick Karabatsos, James W. LeDuc, Patricia M. Repik, John T. Roehrig, Connie S. Schmaljohn, Robert E. Shope, Robert B. Tesh, Scott C. Weaver

Hypothesis

The shift from conventional virus detection techniques to molecular methods has impaired studies of virus biology.

Conclusion

The reliance on molecular techniques has limited the understanding of phenotypic characteristics of newly discovered viruses.

Supporting Evidence

  • New molecular techniques have replaced classical methods for virus detection.
  • Phenotypic characteristics are essential for understanding virus biology.
  • Funding agencies prioritize molecular studies, impacting research focus.
  • Field studies are crucial for isolating and identifying new viruses.

Takeaway

Scientists used to study viruses in a certain way, but now they mostly use new technology that doesn't tell them everything they need to know about the viruses.

Methodology

The commentary discusses the historical and current methods of virus detection and emphasizes the need for both genotypic and phenotypic data.

Potential Biases

Funding decisions favor molecular studies over classical phenotypic studies, potentially biasing research focus.

Limitations

The commentary highlights the limitations of relying solely on molecular techniques for virus identification.

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication