|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Anthrax: New Tests Can Distinguish Between Ames Strain Stocks, Expert Says A researcher in the FBI’s “Amerithrax” investigation into the recent anthrax attacks said yesterday that he can determine differences between various stocks of the Ames strain (see GSN, Feb. 11). Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University said his new analytical method can distinguish between stocks of the Ames strain held by different laboratories and research facilities. The information could help determine which facility kept the strain of anthrax most closely related to that used in the attacks. This, in turn, could help narrow down the potential suspects, according to the New York Times (see GSN, Feb. 8). Previously, Keim had developed a genetic fingerprint test for anthrax, but it could not determine the difference between various Ames strain stocks, according to the Times. The new method examines two rings of DNA in the anthrax bacterium called plasmids, the Times reported. Keim focused on one of these plasmids, known as a poly-A tract, and determined that stocks of the Ames strain differed in their gene sequences (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001). Using the new method, Keim said he is able to determine the differences between the Ames strain held by four laboratories and a natural strain of Ames anthrax taken from a goat in 1997 (Nicholas Wade, New York Times, Feb. 13). False Alarm in Olympic City A false positive test for anthrax alarmed officials at the Salt Lake City airport for more than two hours last night, according to the Associated Press. A recently installed screening system first detected anthrax, according to the AP. After a second test also indicated anthrax, officials put emergency response plans into motion, but they did not stop airport operations and issued no warnings, the AP reported. Further laboratory testing came back negative four times, which led officials to believe the initial tests were wrong. “We don’t believe this indicates the equipment is faulty at all,” said Scott Williams, deputy director of the Utah Health Department. “These tests are extremely sensitive and we know that at the first level there is the possibility of a false result” (Associated Press/New York Times, Feb. 13).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
