Cargando…

Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses

Multiplex PCR methods are attractive to clinical laboratories wanting to broaden their detection of respiratory viral pathogens in clinical specimens. However, multiplexed assays must be well optimized to retain or improve upon the analytic sensitivity of their singleplex counterparts. In this exper...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parker, Jayme, Fowler, Nisha, Walmsley, Mary Louise, Schmidt, Terri, Scharrer, Jason, Kowaleski, James, Grimes, Teresa, Hoyos, Shanann, Chen, Jack
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4646456/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26569120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143164
_version_ 1782400937665495040
author Parker, Jayme
Fowler, Nisha
Walmsley, Mary Louise
Schmidt, Terri
Scharrer, Jason
Kowaleski, James
Grimes, Teresa
Hoyos, Shanann
Chen, Jack
author_facet Parker, Jayme
Fowler, Nisha
Walmsley, Mary Louise
Schmidt, Terri
Scharrer, Jason
Kowaleski, James
Grimes, Teresa
Hoyos, Shanann
Chen, Jack
author_sort Parker, Jayme
collection PubMed
description Multiplex PCR methods are attractive to clinical laboratories wanting to broaden their detection of respiratory viral pathogens in clinical specimens. However, multiplexed assays must be well optimized to retain or improve upon the analytic sensitivity of their singleplex counterparts. In this experiment, the lower limit of detection (LOD) of singleplex real-time PCR assays targeting respiratory viruses is compared to an equivalent panel on a multiplex PCR platform, the GenMark eSensor RVP. LODs were measured for each singleplex real-time PCR assay and expressed as the lowest copy number detected 95–100% of the time, depending on the assay. The GenMark eSensor RVP LODs were obtained by converting the TCID(50)/mL concentrations reported in the package insert to copies/μL using qPCR. Analytical sensitivity between the two methods varied from 1.2–1280.8 copies/μL (0.08–3.11 log differences) for all 12 assays compared. Assays targeting influenza A/H3N2, influenza A/H1N1pdm09, influenza B, and human parainfluenza 1 and 2 were most comparable (1.2–8.4 copies/μL, <1 log difference). Largest differences in LOD were demonstrated for assays targeting adenovirus group E, respiratory syncytial virus subtype A, and a generic assay for all influenza A viruses regardless of subtype (319.4–1280.8 copies/μL, 2.50–3.11 log difference). The multiplex PCR platform, the GenMark eSensor RVP, demonstrated improved analytical sensitivity for detecting influenza A/H3 viruses, influenza B virus, human parainfluenza virus 2, and human rhinovirus (1.6–94.8 copies/μL, 0.20–1.98 logs). Broader detection of influenza A/H3 viruses was demonstrated by the GenMark eSensor RVP. The relationship between TCID(50)/mL concentrations and the corresponding copy number related to various ATCC cultures is also reported.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4646456
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46464562015-11-25 Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses Parker, Jayme Fowler, Nisha Walmsley, Mary Louise Schmidt, Terri Scharrer, Jason Kowaleski, James Grimes, Teresa Hoyos, Shanann Chen, Jack PLoS One Research Article Multiplex PCR methods are attractive to clinical laboratories wanting to broaden their detection of respiratory viral pathogens in clinical specimens. However, multiplexed assays must be well optimized to retain or improve upon the analytic sensitivity of their singleplex counterparts. In this experiment, the lower limit of detection (LOD) of singleplex real-time PCR assays targeting respiratory viruses is compared to an equivalent panel on a multiplex PCR platform, the GenMark eSensor RVP. LODs were measured for each singleplex real-time PCR assay and expressed as the lowest copy number detected 95–100% of the time, depending on the assay. The GenMark eSensor RVP LODs were obtained by converting the TCID(50)/mL concentrations reported in the package insert to copies/μL using qPCR. Analytical sensitivity between the two methods varied from 1.2–1280.8 copies/μL (0.08–3.11 log differences) for all 12 assays compared. Assays targeting influenza A/H3N2, influenza A/H1N1pdm09, influenza B, and human parainfluenza 1 and 2 were most comparable (1.2–8.4 copies/μL, <1 log difference). Largest differences in LOD were demonstrated for assays targeting adenovirus group E, respiratory syncytial virus subtype A, and a generic assay for all influenza A viruses regardless of subtype (319.4–1280.8 copies/μL, 2.50–3.11 log difference). The multiplex PCR platform, the GenMark eSensor RVP, demonstrated improved analytical sensitivity for detecting influenza A/H3 viruses, influenza B virus, human parainfluenza virus 2, and human rhinovirus (1.6–94.8 copies/μL, 0.20–1.98 logs). Broader detection of influenza A/H3 viruses was demonstrated by the GenMark eSensor RVP. The relationship between TCID(50)/mL concentrations and the corresponding copy number related to various ATCC cultures is also reported. Public Library of Science 2015-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4646456/ /pubmed/26569120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143164 Text en © 2015 Parker et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Parker, Jayme
Fowler, Nisha
Walmsley, Mary Louise
Schmidt, Terri
Scharrer, Jason
Kowaleski, James
Grimes, Teresa
Hoyos, Shanann
Chen, Jack
Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses
title Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses
title_full Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses
title_fullStr Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses
title_full_unstemmed Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses
title_short Analytical Sensitivity Comparison between Singleplex Real-Time PCR and a Multiplex PCR Platform for Detecting Respiratory Viruses
title_sort analytical sensitivity comparison between singleplex real-time pcr and a multiplex pcr platform for detecting respiratory viruses
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4646456/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26569120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143164
work_keys_str_mv AT parkerjayme analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT fowlernisha analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT walmsleymarylouise analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT schmidtterri analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT scharrerjason analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT kowaleskijames analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT grimesteresa analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT hoyosshanann analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses
AT chenjack analyticalsensitivitycomparisonbetweensingleplexrealtimepcrandamultiplexpcrplatformfordetectingrespiratoryviruses