Jui-Chu Lin

Publications (2)2.7 Total impact

• Article: The type-2 variant of human cytomegalovirus glycoprotein N (gN-2) is not the rarest in the Chinese population of Taiwan: influence of primer design.

  Hsin-Pai Chen, Jui-Chu Lin, Su-Pen Yang, Yu-Ching Lan, Wen-Sung Weng, Cheng-Hsien Tsai, Donald Ming-Tak Ho, Cheng-Yi Liu, Wen-Long Cho, Yu-Jiun Chan
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Studies of the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) glycoprotein N (gpUL73-gN) showed that genotypic variations exist in different geographic areas, with gN-2 unidentified in Chinese population. The purpose of this study was to determine the HCMV gN variants in the Chinese population of Taiwan. Primers were designed and a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was carried out on the UL73 gene. The PCR products were subjected to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. The same PCR-RFLP assay was repeated using primers published previously to demonstrate the influence of primer design. Of the 48 clinical HCMV isolates, 33 were positive for PCR products by both primer sets. Fifteen were positive only by the "in-house" PCR. The distribution of gN-1, gN-2, gN-3, and gN-4 by RFLP analysis was 14:11:7:17, with one isolate positive for both gN-1 and gN-2. The published primers detected the four genotypes with the number of 14:0:2:17. The under-representation of gN-2 and gN-3 by the method published previously may be due to inappropriate primer design when re-examining the sequences. On the basis of the results of this study, gN-2 is not the rarest gN genotype in the Chinese population of Taiwan. The design of primers used for PCR-RFLP genotyping may have a great influence on the frequency distribution of HCMV genomic variants.
  Journal of Virological Methods 08/2008; 151(1):161-4. · 2.01 Impact Factor
• Article: Criminal liability research in vaccine administration by public health nurse: a case study of the Nantou vaccine administration case.

  Jui-Chu Lin, Triumph Wang
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Immunization is recognized as a powerful public health tool in disease control and eradication. Registered nurses (RNs) are the principal health professionals responsible for administering vaccines, not only in terms of childhood immunization but also increasingly in administering travel vaccines and annual influenza vaccinations. The RN often provides leadership in developing and maintaining a high quality program. The legal position of nurses when administering a vaccine conflicts with their role as care providers, and nurses must be aware of their legal position when administering a vaccine that has not been individually prescribed by a doctor. A recent case involving a baby who died after receiving a vaccine administered by a public health nurse without a doctor's prescription resulted in the prosecutor initiating a prosecution against the nurse and chief of Health Bureau for a violation of Article 28 of the Physician's Act and the criminal law. Although the nurse and Bureau Chief were judged not guilty, the first trial court pointed out that the behavior of this nurse still violated Article 28. This reflects the conflict that exists between empirical practice and legal regulations. In order to guarantee that prophylactic inoculation is implemented properly under legitimate and effective conditions (specially in remote districts), in May 23, 2006, Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 4 of the Communicable Disease Control Act, which specified that no public health nurse can be prosecuted for violations of Article 28 of the Physician's Act as a result of vaccine administration. In the future, nurses in clinics located in remote districts may conduct prophylactic inoculation work without fear of the terms of Article 28 and focus on implementing public prophylactic inoculation responsibilities. However, a public health nurse can still be liable for the malpractice in criminal law during the vaccination. Therefore, following procedure is still necessary in the conduct of vaccination duties.
  The journal of nursing research: JNR 04/2008; 16(1):1-7. · 0.69 Impact Factor