Big discussion: How to identify a completely new virus using existing technology?

the technology of the 1980s was classic, but then molecular biology was not developed enough, is there any progress in the method now? How can you use today's technology to identify new viruses? I've been thinking about this for a long time, but I haven't figured it out. It's also about how to find a new gene. This is the foundation of true innovation.
netizen alishang: I first come to the simplest:
1, collect all kinds of disease materials, with a variety of cells, host blind transmission, separation of viruses, expect to see cell lesions. If you don't even have cell lesions, don't fold? Is there any other way to prove that there is a virus?
2, purified virus, do electro-mirror observation, and the existing virus form, size similar to do, if it is completely different??? Such as Nipa virus and SARS, electric mirrors can see it. Have you seen any literature on the discovery of the new virus?
3, can you directly draw the genome in the disease material, a needle in a haystack? But how do you identify it?
4, electro-mirror can not see the form, size, purified virus run two-dimensional electrophoresis digging protein point sequencing line? It seems feasible.
think so much first, let's go on...
Netizen mark7447: This is a good topic, but there should be a lot of people thinking, I talk about my ideas.
1, can you find a virus sensitive to all the cells, when there is a new virus, you can directly
culture
, with or without CPE, first get the virus can be the next step.
2, can the biological specimen can be amplified with random quotations, sequenced after sequencing, to determine whether it is a new pathogen.
3, acute and recovery period of blood samples are particularly important, we must try to collect a total of more than
serum
, in the middle of the experiment and so on.
4, should follow Guo Ho's law, carry out relevant animal experimental research.
netizen alishang: After inquiry, your second point in sequencing company can be achieved, the first point is almost impossible to complete the task.
netizen docxat: want to know how to identify, it is recommended to look at the SARS literature, a lot of Oh.
Netizen King Montenegro: I did this:
1, purified virus particles, under the electric mirror to observe its form, if the amount of virus is large, can be made multi-resistance, to see if the known virus has an immune cross-reaction.
2, protein N-side sequencing --- sequence comparison ----
THE PCR
is designed to --- the --- sequence of --- the PCR sequence.
the identification of Sars, relative to everyone may be the most obvious example, by the electric mirror a look, the heart can be determined (crown), can grasp the direction. If it is a brand new virus, in the form can not be classified, only know the size, how to do
? Netizen Alishang said: identify a brand-new virus, I think, to prove the following aspects:
1, not the existing virus;
2, is the new
3, what characteristics
4, the conclusion, what virus
According to the 1980s literature, these are achievable. The key is how to leverage existing technologies? Has the existing technology made progress in solving this problem?
Netizen nylli's point of view is: as mentioned in the previous person, clinical experience is very important, as well as tissue pathology knowledge and other basic is also essential. The key is to decide if it's a new virus.
view of RISC netizens is:
1, the current isolation and identification of a new virus is really difficult, not only technical limitations, but also academic authority and other potential impact.
2, pay attention to the combination of clinical information (signs, clinical specimens and auxiliary examination results, prognosmation, etc.) and laboratory work. Effective clinical information can help narrow the scope and guide research programs for laboratory work.
3, the traditional virus blind transmission separation culture method is still very effective, can not be looked down upon. It is still a gold standard.
4, with the help of molecular biology means from nucleic acids, such as according to the current known species of viruses in the conservative zone PCR quotation, the establishment of a general PCR citation library, the future has a high-volume technology platform can be quickly identified with the help of the lead library. Of course, this is only an idea.
5, protein level research, such as 2D electrophoresis and other future to achieve a more mature technology platform, can effectively carry out virus and host protein difference expression research, as a research on new types of virus information.
a little clumsy, please criticize the right point.
the view of kinky netizens: it is said that through purification of the virus, it is almost impossible to do electroscopy to observe its form. Because the virus particles are too small, it is particularly difficult to find a suitable field of vision, so this method is easy to say in books, the actual operation is very difficult.
freecell netizen said: My opinion is similar to RISC's. The identification of new viruses is a multidisciplinary process.
first: we attach importance to clinically identified diagnosis. For example, the 2003 SARS discovery is to identify some clues by identifying symptoms of common respiratory viruses or other pathogens
microbials

; The use of
antigens
to capture ELISA, screening and elimination of suspicious pathogens, the use of double serum IgG, IgM testing, analysis of
antibody
production laws, to find out the infection process,
third: is the use of classical virological methods. Inoculated cells to produce CPE. But the cellular model of HCV was not built until last year. It is generally believed that the observation of virus particles under the electroscope is the gold standard for virus identification, and
Fourth: it is the use of molecular biology methods to amplify and eliminate suspicious pathogens. In the case of sequence, BLAST is performed to obtain the approximate classification location of the virus;
Fifth: of course, functional genomics and
protein
histology methods, such as gene chips, 2D, etc. Interestingly, the identification of different types of rovirus is achieved through SDS-PAGE and is still in use;
it is worth noting that the above methods are not completely separate and need to be used in a comprehensive way. Identifying a brand-new virus requires solid theory, rich experience, intelligent experimental design, and bold speculation.
Daytrode 007 netizens said: We are in accordance with the following steps (we are doing aquatic virus identification and testing)
1, the collection of disease materials, the separation of bacteria, such as no bacteria, electro-mirror observation, according to the form of the virus preliminary identification
2, the use of potentially sensitive cells, isolation virus, observation of cell lesions, electro-mirror observation.
3, using the host (fish) to carry out the regression infection test of the virus, observe the disease of sick fish, and at the same time carry out electroscopic observation.
4, purified virus, do electroscopic observation.
5, direct-pumping virus genome (to determine whether it is DNA or RNA virus), based on the currently known species of the conservative area of the virus PCR lead for preliminary PCR.
6, enzymatic analysis of the virus genome, at the same time using AFP analysis (DNA virus), adhesive nucleic acid sequence, Blast comparation (our results are out)
7, purified virus after 1D, 2D electrophoresis protein point sequencing, should be feasible, but we did not do
The view of tgzhaoyujun netizens is: personally think that to determine whether it is a new virus, in the presence of lesions or the corresponding physiological reaction or impact should appear in theory, and the pathogen is filtered, can be suspected to be a new virus, can not purify the virus or see or appear CPE under the electron mirror, can not deny the existence of the virus. A stream into a river, met more people, there will always be a turnaround.
whw3791 netizens said: This is a very interesting topic, the virus first of all can pass
filtering
membrane, in general, the best host cell strain, some viruses such as the Marik virus is cytotoxic, out of the cell can not survive, and some viruses are very lively! Virus determination should have a wealth of clinical experience!
noheart_ren view of netizens is: do viruses, the following is our classic approach: culture (CPE) -----EM observe ------serology test------histology, pathological character----molecular detection -----animal test
xiangtiantian2004 netizens' point of view is: there are times when the virus may not be able to cultivate success, so the genome should be necessary. Microbial genomics today can provide a lot of useful information, such as analyzing similar genealogies. Now the virus gene library should also gradually improve rich, read Wen Yumei teacher in 2001 on the international conference on microbial genomics related to many comments, mainly about microorganisms are bacteria. In recent years, the articles of the International Congress on Microbial Genomics have not been seen, there is no time to search, I do not know how the current progress?